CBTS Up and Running in 2012…and FREE!!

We’ve released all of our data to the public, and it is completely free. Remember to head on over to the Gamblers Corner section of our site. We’ve received almost 500,000 unique visitors since the start of the season as we keep going strong.

Anatomy of a Great Cover Coach: Part 3 – Rushing Defense

One of things that we have started to see at Coaches By The Spread is that certain coaches are definitely better than other coaches when it comes to covering the spread. One of the ways we try to measure this is by our Average ATS Cover rating that we assign to coaches. This is simply the average number of points by which a coach covers the spread. This number can be positive or negative depending on whether or not, on average, they are winning or losing against the spread. But the question that every bettor has isn’t always ‘by how much’, it is ‘why’. What are some of the attributes of good cover coaches? In the second of a multi-part series, we’ll continue exploring different aspects the game and determine which translate into positive (or negative) traits of a great cover coach. In Part 3, we’ll evaluate rushing defense.

When going through the weekly matchup and analyzing the lines, the mindset of every bettor is different. Some look more for underdogs, while some are drawn to favorites. Regardless of persuasion, the purpose of this article is to figure out whether or not teams with good/bad rush defenses are teams we should be circling from week to week. For our purposes, at CBTS, we focus on coaches, since their tactical control dictates the performance in a game more than simply a team name. To that end, let’s start our analysis by looking at the top 25 coaches/teams by rushing defense, and see how they are doing 11 weeks into the season:

Coach Team Yds. Per Rush Rushing YPG SU Record SU % ATS Record ATS %
Nick Saban Alabama 1.82 51.9 9-1 90.00 7-3-0 70.00
Jimbo Fisher Florida St. 2.35 85 7-3 70.00 5-5-0 50.00
Butch Jones Cincinnati 2.44 81.44 7-2 77.78 5-4-0 55.56
Les Miles LSU 2.61 83.8 10-0 100.00 7-3-0 70.00
Mark Richt Georgia 2.88 87.1 8-2 80.00 7-3-0 70.00
Kyle Whittingham Utah 2.93 100.8 6-4 60.00 5-5-0 50.00
Paul Pasqualoni Connecticut 2.93 89.89 4-5 44.44 3-6-0 33.33
Mark Dantonio Michigan St. 2.93 101.9 8-2 80.00 6-4-0 60.00
Mike Sherman Texas A&M 2.97 112.2 5-5 50.00 2-8-0 20.00
Ron Zook Illinois 2.98 114.9 6-4 60.00 4-6-0 40.00
Skip Holtz South Fla. 3.00 108 5-4 55.56 4-5-0 44.44
Charlie Strong Louisville 3.12 110.2 5-5 50.00 6-4-0 60.00
Everett Withers North Carolina 3.14 108.3 6-4 60.00 4-6-0 40.00
Sonny Dykes Louisiana Tech 3.17 105.2 6-4 60.00 8-2-0 80.00
Steve Addazio Temple 3.19 102.8 6-4 60.00 6-4-0 60.00
Todd Berry La.-Monroe 3.19 101.6 3-7 30.00 4-5-0 44.44
Joe Paterno Penn St. 3.20 119.5 8-2 80.00 2-6-2 25.00
Gary Andersen Utah St. 3.20 114.56 4-5 44.44 5-4-0 55.56
Frank Beamer Virginia Tech 3.22 102 9-1 90.00 3-7-0 30.00
Hugh Freeze Arkansas St. 3.24 114.5 8-2 80.00 8-2-0 80.00
Darrell Hazell Kent St. 3.29 116.2 4-6 40.00 4-6-0 40.00
Todd Graham Pittsburgh 3.32 122.6 5-5 50.00 5-5-0 50.00
David Shaw Stanford 3.32 94.2 9-1 90.00 8-1-1 88.89
James Franklin Vanderbilt 3.35 122.9 5-5 50.00 8-2-0 80.00
Bill Blankenship Tulsa 3.37 132.9 7-3 70.00 6-4-0 60.00
Totals: 160-86 65.04 132-110-3 54.55

This is interesting. Unlike Rushing Offense, having a top 25 rushing defense only makes for a moderately better cover coach.
Like we did with rushing offense, let’s also look at the bottom 20 to see if poor rushing defenses result in a good fading trait:

Coach Team Yds. Per Rush Rushing YPG SU Record SU % ATS Record ATS %
Pat Hill Fresno St. 4.94 182.8 3-7 30.00 4-6-0 40.00
Mike Stoops Arizona 4.95 179.8 2-8 20.00 3-7-0 30.00
Troy Calhoun Air Force 5.00 218.5 5-5 50.00 3-7-0 30.00
Mike Price UTEP 5.01 182.9 5-5 50.00 6-4-0 60.00
Rick Neuheisel UCLA 5.03 190.2 5-5 50.00 3-7-0 30.00
Dave Clawson Bowling Green 5.04 200 4-6 40.00 5-5-0 50.00
Neil Callaway UAB 5.08 195.4 2-8 20.00 6-4-0 60.00
Larry Porter Memphis 5.15 190.1 2-8 20.00 3-7-0 30.00
Dave Christensen Wyoming 5.21 240.44 6-3 66.67 6-3-0 66.67
Houston Nutt Mississippi 5.22 209.9 2-8 20.00 3-7-0 30.00
Jon Embree Colorado 5.24 179.45 2-9 18.18 3-8-0 27.27
Steve Fairchild Colorado St. 5.25 220 3-6 33.33 2-7-0 22.22
Tommy Tuberville Texas Tech 5.26 242.8 5-5 50.00 5-5-0 50.00
Jerry Kill Minnesota 5.27 200.3 2-8 20.00 5-5-0 50.00
Kevin Wilson Indiana 5.31 245.8 1-9 10.00 5-5-0 50.00
Art Briles Baylor 5.47 219.89 6-3 66.67 5-4-0 55.56
DeWayne Walker New Mexico St. 5.49 207.7 4-6 40.00 7-3-0 70.00
Mike Locksley New Mexico 5.53 256.4 1-9 10.00 4-6-0 40.00
Bill Cubit Western Mich. 5.77 241.67 5-5 50.00 5-4-1 55.56
Turner Gill Kansas 6.10 250.9 2-8 20.00 5-5-0 50.00
Totals: 67-131 33.84 88-109-1 44.67

Similar to above with the top 25, being in the bottom 20 in rush defense is only moderately advantageous ATS. Just by quickly going through the results you’ll see there are mostly below average teams in this list. Clearly, having a good rush defense is trait of a successful coach, but doesn’t necessarily mean they will be covering on Saturdays. The same can be said for teams with poor rushing defenses. So, after examining rushing defenses on both ends of the spectrum for 2011, being in the top or bottom of either is only a moderate advantage for bettors.

Lee Corso: By The Numbers

October 5, 1996 was the first time that Coach Lee Corso put a mascot head on during ESPN’s Gameday on Saturday morning. It was the Brutus the Buckeye head at the Ohio State University campus against the Penn State Nittany Lions. Since then he has done it every weekend since that he, Kirk, and Chris have been on a college campus, tallying 200 picks as of this past Saturday. Every college football Saturday for 16 years he has picked the team he thought would win by wearing different head gear and even sometimes firing off weapons. It has been a part of Gameday that everyone looks forward to during each week of the season.
What we have always wondered is, “how does Corso do on his picks?” There was one point that it seemed that no matter who Corso picked they would lose. After doing some research, we found out that Corso’s Mascot Picks have actually been correct 68.5% of the time over the past 15 years. He is a whopping 137-63. The crazier thing is that when picking the USC Trojans, he is a whopping 15-0. We then tried to find out the info on how he does against the spread, even though he doesn’t pick against the spread. Here are his numbers from this season:

WK Away Home LINE Score Corso’s Pick ATS
1 LSU Oregon++ LSU -3 LSU 40 – OU 27 LSU Win
2 Notre Dame Michigan ND -3 ND 31 – UM 35 Michigan Win
3 Oklahoma Florida St. Oklahoma -3.5 Okla 23 – FSU 13 Oklahoma Win
4 LSU West Virginia LSU -5.5 LSU 47 – WVU 21 LSU Win
5 Nebraska Wisconsin Wisc -9.5 Neb 17 – UW 48 Nebraska Loss
6 Oklahoma Texas++ Oklahoma – 11 Ok 47- UT 17 Oklahoma Win
7 Arizona St. Oregon Oregon – 14 ASU 27 – Ore 41 Oregon Push
8 Wisconsin Michigan St. Wisconsin -7 Wisc 31 – MSU 37 Wisconsin Loss
++ = Neutral Site Game

With a 6-2 record straight up this season and a 5-2-1 record this year against the spread, going with Corso may not be such a bad idea. However, he did start out 4-0 ATS and has now cooled down going 1-2-1 in his last 4 games. Let’s see if this weekend he picks USC again to tries and extend the streak to 16. It will be tough as they are going up against Stanford and David Shaw who is 7-0 SU and ATS. Happy hunting Coach Corso, we’re looking forward to the next 200 picks.

Article contributed by subscriber Michael Vandura

Tags:

Anatomy of a Great Cover Coach: Part 2 – Passing Offense

One of things that we have started to see at Coaches By The Spread is that certain coaches are definitely better than other coaches when it comes to covering the spread. One of the ways we try to measure this is by our Average ATS Cover rating that we assign to coaches. This is simply the average number of points by which a coach covers the spread. This number can be positive or negative depending on whether or not, on average, they are winning or losing against the spread. But the question that every bettor has isn’t always ‘by how much’, it is ‘why’. What are some of the attributes of good cover coaches? In the second of a multi-part series, we’ll continue exploring different aspects the game and determine which translate into positive (or negative) traits of a great cover coach. In Part 2, we’ll evaluate passing offense.

When going through the weekly matchup and analyzing the lines, the mindset of every bettor is different. Some look more for underdogs, while some are drawn to favorites. Regardless of persuasion, the purpose of this article is to figure out whether or not teams with good/bad passing attacks are teams we should be circling from week to week. For our purposes, at CBTS, we focus on coaches, since their tactical control dictates the performance in a game more than simply a team name. To that end, let’s start our analysis by looking at how the top 20 passing coaches/teams in college football are doing a mere 5 weeks into the season:

Coach Team Passing YPG SU Record SU % ATS Record ATS %
Kevin Sumlin Houston 451.2 5-0 100.00 3-2-0 60.00
Mike Gundy Oklahoma St. 415.5 4-0 100.00 3-1-0 75.00
Mike Stoops Arizona 384 1-4 20.00 2-3-0 40.00
Paul Wulff Washington St. 379 3-1 75.00 3-1-0 75.00
Bob Stoops Oklahoma 377.75 4-0 100.00 3-1-0 75.00
Dana Holgorsen West Virginia 362.8 4-1 80.00 2-3-0 40.00
Bobby Petrino Arkansas 351.8 4-1 80.00 3-2-0 60.00
Art Briles Baylor 351.5 3-1 75.00 3-1-0 75.00
Tommy Tuberville Texas Tech 345.5 4-0 100.00 3-1-0 75.00
Greg McMackin Hawaii 343.4 3-2 60.00 3-2-0 60.00
Derek Dooley Tennessee 336.5 3-1 75.00 2-1-1 66.67
Larry Blakeney Troy 331.75 2-2 50.00 1-3-0 25.00
Bill Cubit Western Mich. 331.5 3-2 60.00 3-1-1 75.00
Jimbo Fisher Florida St. 328 2-2 50.00 1-3-0 25.00
June Jones SMU 326.8 4-1 80.00 3-2-0 60.00
Lane Kiffin Southern California 317.8 4-1 80.00 2-3-0 40.00
Jim Grobe Wake Forest 314 3-1 75.00 3-1-0 75.00
Hugh Freeze Arkansas St. 312 3-2 60.00 4-1-0 80.00
David Cutcliffe Duke 311.6 3-2 60.00 3-2-0 60.00
Rick Stockstill Middle Tenn. 305 1-3 25.00 2-2-0 50.00
Totals: 63-27 70.00 52-36-2 59.09

This is impressive. Like Rushing Offense, having a top 20 passing offense makes you a significantly better cover coach.
Like we did with rushing offense, let’s also look at the bottom 20 to see if poor passing attacks result in a good fading trait:

Coach Team Passing YPG SU Record SU % ATS Record ATS %
Les Miles LSU 177 5-0 100.00 3-2-0 60.00
Steve Spurrier South Carolina 174.6 4-1 80.00 2-3-0 40.00
Bobby Hauck UNLV 169.75 1-3 25.00 2-2-0 50.00
Bo Pelini Nebraska 168.4 4-1 80.00 1-4-0 20.00
Pat Fitzgerald Northwestern 167 2-2 50.00 2-2-0 50.00
Jerry Kill Minnesota 164.2 1-4 20.00 2-3-0 40.00
Willie Taggart Western Ky. 161.5 0-4 0.00 2-2-0 50.00
Houston Nutt Mississippi 158.4 2-3 40.00 2-3-0 40.00
Steve Addazio Temple 156.4 3-2 60.00 4-1-0 80.00
Gary Andersen Utah St. 156 1-3 25.00 3-1-0 75.00
Luke Fickell Ohio St. 154 3-2 60.00 2-3-0 40.00
Troy Calhoun Air Force 149 3-1 75.00 1-3-0 25.00
Joker Phillips Kentucky 139.4 2-3 40.00 2-3-0 40.00
Howard Schnellenberger Fla. Atlantic 137.75 0-4 0.00 2-2-0 50.00
Bill Snyder Kansas St. 130.75 4-0 100.00 3-1-0 75.00
James Franklin Vanderbilt 124.25 3-1 75.00 3-1-0 75.00
Darrell Hazell Kent St. 101 1-4 20.00 1-4-0 20.00
Ron English Eastern Mich. 100.2 3-2 60.00 2-1-2 66.67
Ken Niumatalolo Navy 84.75 2-2 50.00 3-1-0 75.00
Rich Ellerson Army 45 2-3 40.00 3-2-0 60.00
Totals: 46-45 50.55 45-44-2 50.56

This is particularly interesting. Being in the bottom 20 in passing is seemingly meaningless ATS. Just by quickly going through the results you’ll see there are some good teams (ATS and SU) in this list. Clearly, having a good passing attack is trait of a solid cover coach, but having a bad passing attack doesn’t necessarily mean they won’t be covering on Saturdays. Most of the teams in this list are conversely very successful running the football, which we’ve already determined is a great trait ATS and SU. So, after examining rushing and passing individually, being in the top 20 of either is a huge advantage for bettors. But when it comes to fading, only poor rushing teams seem to hold any value.

Anatomy of a Great Cover Coach: Part 1 – Rushing Offense

One of things that we have started to see at Coaches By The Spread is that certain coaches are definitely better than other coaches when it comes to covering the spread. One of the ways we try to measure this is by our Average ATS Cover rating that we assign to coaches. This is simply the average number of points by which a coach covers the spread. This number can be positive or negative depending on whether or not, on average, they are winning or losing against the spread. But the question that every bettor has isn’t always ‘by how much’, it is ‘why’. What are some of the attributes of good cover coaches? In the first of a multi-part series, we’ll explore different aspects the game and determine which translate into positive (or negative) traits of a great cover coach. In Part 1, we’ll evaluate rushing offense.

When going through the weekly matchup and analyzing the lines, the mindset of every bettor is different. Some look more for underdogs, while some are drawn to favorites. Regardless of persuasion, the purpose of this article is to figure out whether or not teams with good/bad rushing attacks are teams we should be circling from week to week. For our purposes, at CBTS, we focus on coaches, since their tactical control dictates the performance in a game more than simply a team name. To that end, let’s start our analysis by looking at how the top 20 rushing coaches/teams in college football are doing a mere 4 weeks into the season:

Coach Team Rushing YPG SU Record SU % ATS Record ATS %
Troy Calhoun Air Force 411.67 2-1 66.67 0-3-0 0.00
Paul Johnson Georgia Tech 398.75 4-0 100.00 4-0-0 100.00
Rich Ellerson Army 372.25 1-3 25.00 2-2-0 50.00
Ken Niumatalolo Navy 358.33 2-1 66.67 3-0-0 100.00
Gary Andersen Utah St. 316 1-2 33.33 2-1-0 66.67
Chip Kelly Oregon 299.5 3-1 75.00 2-2-0 50.00
Chris Ault Nevada 285.33 1-2 33.33 1-2-0 33.33
Bo Pelini Nebraska 272.5 4-0 100.00 1-3-0 25.00
Brady Hoke Michigan 270 4-0 100.00 3-1-0 75.00
Will Muschamp Florida 259 4-0 100.00 4-0-0 100.00
Danny Hope Purdue 258.67 2-1 66.67 1-2-0 33.33
Gary Pinkel Missouri 253.25 2-2 50.00 3-1-0 75.00
Bret Bielema Wisconsin 245.5 4-0 100.00 3-1-0 75.00
Ron Zook Illinois 241.75 4-0 100.00 2-2-0 50.00
Art Briles Baylor 240.67 3-0 100.00 3-0-0 100.00
Butch Jones Cincinnati 239.25 3-1 75.00 3-1-0 75.00
Turner Gill Kansas 235 2-1 66.67 2-1-0 66.67
Ron English Eastern Mich. 234.25 2-2 50.00 2-1-1 66.67
Nick Saban Alabama 230.75 4-0 100.00 3-1-0 75.00
Skip Holtz South Fla. 228.5 4-0 100.00 3-1-0 75.00
Totals: 56-17 76.71 47-25-1 65.28

Pretty powerful statement here. Being in the top 20 in rushing yields a remarkable 65.28% ATS so far in 2011. Clearly, being successful running the football is a really good cover trait. But just to properly contrast the results, let’s run the numbers on the bottom 20 and see what they look like:

Coach Team Rushing YPG SU Record SU % ATS Record ATS %
Darrell Hazell Kent St. 92 1-3 25.00 0-4-0 0.00
Houston Nutt Mississippi 90.5 1-3 25.00 1-3-0 25.00
Doc Holliday Marshall 88.25 1-3 25.00 3-1-0 75.00
Greg McMackin Hawaii 87.75 2-2 50.00 2-2-0 50.00
Mike Price UTEP 86.5 2-2 50.00 3-1-0 75.00
Jon Embree Colorado 86.5 1-3 25.00 2-2-0 50.00
Larry Porter Memphis 86.25 1-3 25.00 1-3-0 25.00
Dan Enos Central Mich. 86 1-3 25.00 0-4-0 0.00
DeWayne Walker New Mexico St. 85 1-3 25.00 2-2-0 50.00
Tom O’Brien North Carolina St. 85 2-2 50.00 0-4-0 0.00
Ruffin McNeill East Carolina 83.67 1-2 33.33 2-1-0 66.67
Derek Dooley Tennessee 81.67 2-1 66.67 1-1-1 50.00
Jimbo Fisher Florida St. 79.5 2-2 50.00 1-3-0 25.00
Neil Callaway UAB 78.67 0-3 0.00 1-2-0 33.33
Dana Holgorsen West Virginia 76.5 3-1 75.00 1-3-0 25.00
Bronco Mendenhall BYU 68 2-2 50.00 2-2-0 50.00
Robb Akey Idaho 67.25 1-3 25.00 1-2-0 33.33
Don Treadwell Miami (OH) 66.33 0-3 0.00 1-2-0 33.33
Mike Stoops Arizona 62.25 1-3 25.00 1-3-0 25.00
Howard Schnellenberger Fla. Atlantic 53.33 0-3 0.00 1-2-0 33.33
Totals: 25-50 33.33 26-47-1 35.62

It is almost a reverse mirror of the top 20. This is really remarkable. There is definitely an huge edge to be found when a top 20 rushing team faces a bottom 20 rushing team. Rushing offense is without a doubt an important trait to be aware of when going through the schedule early in the week. In Part 2, we will take a look passing offense, and see if that yields similar results to it’s rushing counterpart.

Does the Home Team Always Win on Thursday?

The Thursday night game in college football gets the weekend started early for most fans. The games normally feature two respectable and competitive AQ conference teams, and the game is usually a good watch. Last night’s game got us to thinking though, does the Home team seemingly always win or is it just us? Well, we dug into the numbers a bit and here’s what we came up with:

Teams Overall Record Record ATS
Thursday Night Home Teams 182-95 (65.7%) 138-133-6 (50.9%)
All Other Home Teams 3908-2526 (60.7%) 3153-3172-109 (49.9%)

So it’s not just us. Being the home team on Thursday night means a bit more than the other days of the week. Actually 5% more. So if you are the schedule maker, avoid Thursday night road games for your team. It’s just not a winning proposition. For the bettors out there, Vegas seems to be right on the money regardless of which side you’re on.

Best Head Coaches ATS in Conference.

Now that the first week of college football is in the books and most teams have their token cupcake out of the way, the next game on the docket for a lot of coaches are conference games. In our CBTS ATS Situational Head Coach Ranking, we rank all of the coaches at Home, Away, as an Underdog, and as a Favorite, but we don’t break it down by conference. To that end, here is a list of all of the active coaches and their record in conference games.

Coach Team SU record SU % ATS Record ATS %
Ken Niumatalolo Navy 5-1 83.33 4-2-0 66.67
Larry Blakeney Troy 26-4 86.67 20-10-0 66.67
Greg McMackin Hawaii 15-9 62.50 15-8-1 65.22
Derek Dooley Tennessee 15-17 46.88 20-11-1 64.52
Chris Petersen Boise St. 38-2 95.00 24-14-2 63.16
Brian Kelly Notre Dame 34-14 70.83 29-17-2 63.04
Bobby Petrino Arkansas 35-19 64.81 34-20-0 62.96
Willie Taggart Western Ky. 2-6 25.00 5-3-0 62.50
Ruffin McNeill East Carolina 5-3 62.50 5-3-0 62.50
Mike Riley Oregon St. 41-28 59.42 43-26-0 62.32
George O’Leary UCF 29-13 69.05 26-16-0 61.90
Bill Snyder Kansas St. 27-30 47.37 35-22-0 61.40
Tom O’Brien North Carolina St. 38-37 50.67 46-29-0 61.33
David Bailiff Rice 15-17 46.88 19-12-1 61.29
Paul Johnson Georgia Tech 23-14 62.16 22-14-1 61.11
Jerry Kill Minnesota 18-7 72.00 14-9-2 60.87
Gene Chizik Auburn 14-19 42.42 20-13-0 60.61
Frank Beamer Virginia Tech 60-21 74.07 49-32-0 60.49
Dave Christensen Wyoming 5-11 31.25 9-6-1 60.00
Troy Calhoun Air Force 21-11 65.63 19-13-0 59.38
Randy Edsall Maryland 23-26 46.94 29-20-0 59.18
Gary Patterson TCU 61-18 77.22 46-32-1 58.97
Chris Ault Nevada 38-18 67.86 33-23-0 58.93
Dabo Swinney Clemson 10-7 58.82 10-7-0 58.82
Lane Kiffin Southern California 9-8 52.94 10-7-0 58.82
Larry Fedora Southern Miss. 14-10 58.33 14-10-0 58.33
Frank Solich Ohio 45-29 60.81 42-30-2 58.33
Kirk Ferentz Iowa 50-30 62.50 45-33-2 57.69
Steve Spurrier South Carolina 29-28 50.88 31-23-3 57.41
Skip Holtz South Fla. 33-16 67.35 28-21-0 57.14
Bob Stoops Oklahoma 71-16 81.61 49-37-1 56.98
Rick Stockstill Middle Tenn. 25-12 67.57 21-16-0 56.76
Butch Jones Cincinnati 24-8 75.00 17-13-2 56.67
Mike Sherman Texas A&M 11-13 45.83 13-10-1 56.52
Al Golden Miami 20-13 60.61 18-14-1 56.25
Dan Mullen Mississippi St. 7-9 43.75 9-7-0 56.25
Kyle Whittingham Utah 35-13 72.92 27-21-0 56.25
Tim Beckman Toledo 10-6 62.50 9-7-0 56.25
Bronco Mendenhall BYU 39-9 81.25 27-21-0 56.25
Turner Gill Kansas 16-25 39.02 23-18-0 56.10
Nick Saban Alabama 51-17 75.00 37-29-2 56.06
Brady Hoke Michigan 34-30 53.13 34-27-3 55.74
Chip Kelly Oregon 17-1 94.44 10-8-0 55.56
Steve Sarkisian Washington 9-9 50.00 10-8-0 55.56
Rocky Long San Diego St. 34-26 56.67 33-27-0 55.00
Bret Bielema Wisconsin 27-13 67.50 21-18-1 53.85
Todd Graham Pittsburgh 28-14 66.67 22-19-1 53.66
Mike Stoops Arizona 27-34 44.26 32-28-1 53.33
Todd Berry La.-Monroe 7-24 22.58 16-14-1 53.33
Tommy Tuberville Texas Tech 47-26 64.38 38-34-1 52.78
Houston Nutt Mississippi 39-43 47.56 43-39-0 52.44
Mike Gundy Oklahoma St. 25-23 52.08 24-22-2 52.17
Kevin Sumlin Houston 16-9 64.00 13-12-0 52.00
Mark Dantonio Michigan St. 31-23 57.41 27-25-2 51.92
Mack Brown Texas 65-18 78.31 42-39-2 51.85
Dennis Erickson Arizona St. 27-33 45.00 31-29-0 51.67
Mike Price UTEP 39-33 54.17 37-35-0 51.39
Howard Schnellenberger Fla. Atlantic 22-15 59.46 19-18-0 51.35
Art Briles Baylor 32-33 49.23 33-32-0 50.77
Joe Paterno Penn St. 45-35 56.25 39-38-3 50.65
Bo Pelini Nebraska 17-9 65.38 13-13-0 50.00
Mike Macintyre San Jose St. 0-8 0.00 4-4-0 50.00
Rob Ianello Akron 1-7 12.50 4-4-0 50.00
Sonny Dykes Louisiana Tech 4-4 50.00 4-4-0 50.00
Gary Andersen Utah St. 5-11 31.25 8-8-0 50.00
Paul Rhoads Iowa St. 6-10 37.50 8-8-0 50.00
Larry Porter Memphis 0-8 0.00 4-4-0 50.00
Danny Hope Purdue 6-10 37.50 7-7-2 50.00
DeWayne Walker New Mexico St. 2-14 12.50 8-8-0 50.00
David Cutcliffe Duke 5-19 20.83 11-11-2 50.00
Gary Pinkel Missouri 42-40 51.22 40-40-2 50.00
Jeff Tedford California 44-33 57.14 37-38-2 49.33
Greg Schiano Rutgers 24-45 34.78 34-35-0 49.28
June Jones SMU 52-29 64.20 39-41-1 48.75
Paul Pasqualoni Connecticut 14-13 51.85 13-14-0 48.15
Jim Grobe Wake Forest 33-48 40.74 39-42-0 48.15
Steve Fairchild Colorado St. 7-18 28.00 12-13-0 48.00
Ron Zook Illinois 32-40 44.44 34-37-1 47.89
Mike Locksley New Mexico 2-15 11.76 8-9-0 47.06
Mark Richt Georgia 55-28 66.27 37-43-3 46.25
Mario Cristobal FIU 14-17 45.16 14-17-0 45.16
Neil Callaway UAB 11-21 34.38 14-17-1 45.16
Pat Fitzgerald Northwestern 18-22 45.00 18-22-0 45.00
Jimbo Fisher Florida St. 6-3 66.67 4-5-0 44.44
Paul Wulff Washington St. 2-25 7.41 12-15-0 44.44
Frank Spaziani Boston College 9-7 56.25 7-9-0 43.75
Dave Clawson Bowling Green 7-9 43.75 7-9-0 43.75
Charlie Strong Louisville 3-4 42.86 3-4-0 42.86
Doug Marrone Syracuse 5-9 35.71 6-8-0 42.86
Bill Cubit Western Mich. 29-18 61.70 19-26-2 42.22
Les Miles LSU 50-32 60.98 32-45-5 41.56
Dan McCarney North Texas 17-32 34.69 20-29-0 40.82
Pat Hill Fresno St. 54-26 67.50 32-48-0 40.00
Bobby Hauck UNLV 2-6 25.00 3-5-0 37.50
Ron English Eastern Mich. 2-14 12.50 6-10-0 37.50
Dan Enos Central Mich. 2-6 25.00 3-5-0 37.50
Joker Phillips Kentucky 2-6 25.00 3-5-0 37.50
Doc Holliday Marshall 4-4 50.00 3-5-0 37.50
Rick Neuheisel UCLA 18-25 41.86 15-27-1 35.71
Rich Ellerson Army 0-3 0.00 1-2-0 33.33
Bob Toledo Tulane 15-33 31.25 15-32-1 31.91
Robb Akey Idaho 8-24 25.00 9-22-1 29.03
Mike London Virginia 1-7 12.50 2-6-0 25.00
Jeff Quinn Buffalo 1-7 12.50 1-7-0 12.50

It is always a good idea to know which coaches are good, maybe more importantly, bad in certain situations. This especially holds true against the spread. At CBTS, we like to shine some light on all situations that may help give you an advantage. The bottom of this dataset, the coaches that are particularly bad ATS, are worth considering fading.

Is Returning Starter Data Useful for Gambling?

In our previous post looking at returning starter quarterbacks and their performance against the spread, we found very little useful data (at least trend wise) at a macro level. While the quarterback position is one of the most important factors in deciding a football game, at the end of the day, there are still 21 other positions that can still drastically affect the game’s outcome. To that end, we’re going to look at all 22 positions and see what gambling trends exists (ATS and Over/Unders) with different combinations of returning starters on both side of the ball.

When approaching research like this, it is a good idea to outline the breadth of searches we are going to run against our database. Obviously, in every scenario for our post, we want against the spread (ATS) records, but since returning starters will also have a large bearing on the points scored in a game (offense and defense), we’ll also tally over/under (O/U) records in hope of finding things on that front as well. With our multi pronged search in mind, let’s try and outline a few scenarios that we’re interested in:

  • Overall ATS and O/U Records with Returning Starters On Offense
  • Overall ATS and O/U Records with Returning Starters On Defense
  • Overall ATS and O/U Records with Returning Starters Combined

The time frame for our searches will be 2001 to present. Starting with Overall ATS and O/U Records with Returning Starters On Offense, let’s how the records break down across all teams per the numbers of returning starters (RS) they have:

# RS ATS ATS % O/U Over % Under % PF PA
1 15-16-1 48.39 15-10-0 60.00 40.00 30.03 30.41
2 83-79-2 51.23 80-62-0 56.34 43.66 26.38 26.51
3 193-187-9 50.79 163-154-5 51.42 48.58 27.07 26.89
4 671-654-20 50.64 473-593-22 44.37 55.63 25.87 24.97
5 1061-1104-46 49.01 830-948-21 46.68 53.32 25.72 25.79
6 1313-1392-44 48.54 1130-1167-25 49.19 50.81 26.11 26.31
7 1580-1519-57 50.98 1211-1282-31 48.58 51.42 27.85 25.56
8 1066-1046-37 50.47 828-909-22 47.67 52.33 27.99 24.96
9 583-566-18 50.74 469-443-10 51.43 48.57 29.09 25.60
10 163-155-6 51.26 138-134-3 50.74 49.26 27.73 25.66
11 47-46-0 50.54 24-29-0 45.28 54.72 23.78 26.87

Similar to the results we found with QBs in a previous post, the number of returning starters on offense, by itself, offers no meaningful edge whatsoever. Next, let’s look at Overall ATS and O/U Records with Returning Starters On Defense and see if there is anything there:

# RS ATS ATS % O/U Over % Under % PF PA
1 35-28-0 55.56 26-26-1 50.00 50.00 34.22 25.06
2 70-80-5 46.67 62-58-1 51.67 48.33 26.29 31.06
3 306-293-12 51.09 258-255-6 50.29 49.71 27.40 27.89
4 629-629-21 50.00 522-526-9 49.81 50.19 26.41 26.13
5 1064-1050-35 50.33 885-883-16 50.06 49.94 27.18 26.41
6 1362-1412-45 49.10 1101-1174-37 48.40 51.60 26.95 25.76
7 1543-1527-44 50.26 1191-1365-39 46.60 53.40 27.11 25.15
8 952-957-42 49.87 757-802-14 48.56 51.44 27.52 25.19
9 545-543-25 50.09 383-435-12 46.82 53.18 26.55 24.32
10 219-202-10 52.02 151-169-4 47.19 52.81 25.72 25.25
11 50-43-1 53.76 25-38-0 39.68 60.32 27.47 22.20

Like the offensive results, there just isn’t too much there in terms of advantages or trends. Both ATS and O/U yield no significant edge for the gambler based on only offense or only defense. But what about Overall ATS and O/U Records with Returning Starters Combined? Let’s see if the combined effect of returning starters is any different:

# RS ATS ATS % O/U Over % Under % PF PA
4 11-9-1 55.00 8-6-0 57.14 42.86 29.73 27.82
5 10-3-0 76.92 8-5-0 61.54 38.46 44.23 26.38
6 54-61-1 46.96 51-36-1 58.62 41.38 27.43 31.53
7 66-58-2 53.23 52-59-2 46.85 53.15 24.31 28.99
8 168-174-7 49.12 148-149-3 49.83 50.17 23.57 28.19
9 412-402-18 50.61 333-361-5 47.98 52.02 26.97 25.37
10 659-641-17 50.69 513-552-14 48.17 51.83 26.46 25.45
11 697-759-35 47.87 598-649-23 47.96 52.04 26.38 26.63
12 876-896-19 49.44 707-724-18 49.41 50.59 26.92 26.21
13 1059-1058-38 50.02 826-904-21 47.75 52.25 27.27 25.23
14 998-986-38 50.30 758-836-22 47.55 52.45 26.62 26.23
15 757-751-28 50.20 639-665-14 49.00 51.00 28.61 23.99
16 479-478-15 50.05 353-389-6 47.57 52.43 27.51 25.53
17 305-288-13 51.43 226-235-4 49.02 50.98 28.45 24.16
18 156-133-6 53.98 111-124-4 47.23 52.77 28.37 24.70
19 45-46-2 49.45 20-23-2 46.51 53.49 23.70 24.09
20 18-16-0 52.94 8-13-0 38.10 61.90 19.06 25.64
21 5-5-0 50.00 2-1-0 66.67 33.33 19.27 26.00

More of the same. So where can we go from here? Well, a pretty popular theory is that when a 3 win team has 20 starters back, they are largely still a 3 win team. Building on that theory, let’s only look at teams that have had starters back on teams that were good ATS and O/U in the previous year. This set of searches will start in 2002, since we need to use 2001 for the first ‘previous year’. We’ll also need to break it up into separate scenarios since ATS and O/U records in prior years are not one in the same. To that end, we have a new list of scenarios:

  • Overall ATS Record with Returning Starters on Offense and Defense
  • O/U Records with Returning Starters On Offense
  • O/U Records with Returning Starters On Defense

So, our new scenario will start off with Overall ATS Record with Returning Starters on Offense and Defense with the caveat that only teams that were above 50% ATS the previous year will be included in our search. Let’s see if our results are any different:

# RS SU ATS ATS %
6 10-14 13-11-0 54.17
7 21-28 26-19-1 57.78
8 59-41 50-47-0 51.55
9 170-83 130-108-7 54.62
10 205-160 173-175-4 49.71
11 290-281 267-267-13 50.00
12 328-249 266-280-4 48.72
13 487-399 416-412-18 50.24
14 445-351 394-355-12 52.60
15 399-235 296-292-11 50.34
16 265-177 195-220-5 46.99
17 145-107 115-118-5 49.36
18 92-49 73-59-1 55.30
19 18-9 10-14-1 41.67
20 10-15 14-10-0 58.33
Totals 2944-2198 2438-2387-82 50.53

Again. Not much at all. Just using teams that were above 50% the previous year shows no continuation or repeat of that trend just because a large portion of those starters returned.

Let’s apply these same concepts to Over/Unders. Starting with O/U Records with Returning Starters On Offense, we’ll see if teams that were above 50% the previous year with Overs were able to show a repeat of their performance the following year, based on returning starters. Here are the results:

# RS SU Over/Under Over %
1 5-6 4-4-0 50.00
2 8-5 5-7-0 41.67
3 52-44 41-35-1 53.95
4 257-197 161-236-9 40.55
5 336-295 269-283-6 48.73
6 476-460 388-421-12 47.96
7 649-578 473-515-6 47.87
8 367-300 277-286-4 49.20
9 256-207 196-199-2 49.62
10 41-25 38-22-2 63.33
11 18-30 15-14-0 51.72
Totals 2465-2147 1867-2022-42 48.01

Again, it seems Vegas has made the adjustment. Now let’s go to the defensive side of the ball for O/U Records with Returning Starters On Defense and see if the Unders were any more prevalent based on the numbers of returning starters on the defense (using only teams that were above 50% at Unders the previous year):

# RS SU Over/Under Under %
1 9-4 9-3-0 25.00
2 33-42 28-23-0 45.10
3 159-171 141-137-5 49.28
4 315-280 241-259-5 51.80
5 500-428 397-376-7 48.64
6 503-472 404-416-13 50.73
7 623-562 466-511-20 52.30
8 341-293 280-259-6 48.05
9 255-258 187-204-8 52.17
10 88-87 65-80-3 55.17
11 17-18 11-15-0 57.69
Totals 2843-2615 2229-2283-67 50.60

The theme continues on the defensive side of the ball. Teams that were good with Unders the previous year had no luck continuing the success even with higher numbers of returning starters.

But before we call this one for Vegas, let’s see if restricting the month to September has any effect. In theory, the biggest advantage will be early in the season. Let’s try Overall ATS Record with Returning Starters on Offense and Defense for teams that had a winning record the previous year, except only in September games:

# RS SU ATS ATS %
6 0-6 3-3-0 50.00
7 7-9 7-6-0 53.85
8 18-14 15-14-0 51.72
9 54-22 42-28-2 60.00
10 65-48 44-58-1 43.14
11 96-77 79-78-2 50.32
12 91-80 69-82-0 45.70
13 158-113 121-115-1 51.27
14 151-91 126-86-0 59.43
15 136-56 90-78-1 53.57
16 86-50 48-70-2 40.68
17 42-34 32-31-2 50.79
18 24-18 19-19-1 50.00
19 4-4 1-7-0 12.50
20 6-3 4-4-0 50.00
Totals 938-625 700-679-12 50.76

Still not much, even with just September games. Let’s move on to O/U Records with Returning Starters On Offense, again, only with September games:

# RS SU Over/Under Over %
1 3-1 0-2-0 0.00
2 2-2 1-3-0 25.00
3 18-10 11-8-0 57.89
4 82-60 46-70-1 39.66
5 105-89 73-84-1 46.50
6 174-125 119-117-2 50.42
7 232-154 129-150-1 46.24
8 116-95 82-82-1 50.00
9 86-58 51-58-0 46.79
10 10-9 8-9-0 47.06
11 4-11 4-6-0 40.00
Totals 832-614 524-589-6 52.92

Not much luck with Overs either. Finally, the O/U Records with Returning Starters On Defense with only September games:

# RS SU Over/Under Under %
1 4-1 2-2-0 50.00
2 11-14 11-4-0 26.67
3 48-52 41-34-1 45.33
4 99-79 66-68-1 50.75
5 169-109 106-108-1 50.47
6 165-137 120-114-1 48.72
7 200-164 134-141-8 51.27
8 117-73 68-80-1 54.05
9 86-73 60-53-2 46.90
10 31-26 21-21-2 50.00
11 6-4 5-3-0 37.50
Totals 936-732 634-628-17 49.76

Again, not much there for Unders in September and same trend (or lack thereof) continues.

So what does all of this mean? Well, largely, that when the preseason guides come out you can pretty much ignore the total numbers for returning starters. We are in no way saying that they aren’t significant. But from the research we’ve done thus far, it appears that Vegas has clearly (and successfully) factored the returning starter experience advantage into the lines. While digging into the numbers doesn’t always produce results, knowing which factors are and aren’t important is extremely valuable.

While returning starter data, for now, appears to be of little significant value, it brings us back to one of the core tenets of why we believe coaches are the biggest factor a gambler can evaluate. Players come and go, new starters emerge, but coaches tend to stay the same.

Have a recommendation or angle on how we should use this returning starter data? We’ll be more than happy to run a few scenarios for our subscribers. Email us at team@coachesbythespread.com

Returning Starters at QB Against the Spread

As we posted a few days back, the CBTS Coaches Database now has returning starter data from 2001-2011 (source: Athlon Sports). The immediate use for it was to have a better understanding of why coaches may have varying levels of success from year to year. While the masses will be interested to see our analysis of how this affects overall winning and losing, we can also leverage the data to be a useful indicator for games from a gambling perspective. Is having a certain number of returning starters beneficial? Are certain positions more important than others? Let’s dive in and see what we find. In this post, we will focus on having a returning starter at the QB Position.

Like other Gamblers Corner analysis, we want to start at a macro level and work our way to a micro level to see what shakes out. A good starting point is going to be to see how teams with a returning starter at QB fair against the spread (ATS) versus teams that don’t have a returning starter at QB.

Teams ATS Record ATS Winning Percentage
All 2001-2010 Teams w/ Returning Starter at QB 3994-3959-137 50.2200
All 2001-2010 Teams w/o Returning Starter at QB 2726-2752-102 49.7627

Sometimes Vegas is quite remarkable at how close to 50% they can break on a certain criteria, even at a macro level. But this is to be expected. The breakdown above has a lot of matchups of teams that both have returning starters, and teams that both don’t have returning starters at the QB position. When this occurs, it adds a significant amount of parity to the results. To that end, what we really want is to see the ATS record of teams that have a returning starter versus teams that don’t. Here are those results:

Teams ATS Record ATS Winning Percentage
All 2001-2010 Teams w/ Returning Starter at QB vs.
Teams w/o Returning Starter at QB
1657-1628-65 50.4414

Again, still at a macro level, it looks like there isn’t too much to take away from having the returning starter edge at QB. Let’s see if there is anything that shows up if we break it down by conference (again showing only games with a returning starter vs. teams w/o a returning starter at QB):

Conference ATS Record ATS Winning Percentage
Atlantic Coast Conference 151-174-6 46.4615
Big 12 Conference 182-159-5 53.3724
Big East Conference 109-121-3 47.3913
Big Ten Conference 154-151-7 50.4918
Conference USA 153-155-4 49.6753
Div IA Independent Conference 61-49-2 55.4545
Mid-American Conference 161-180-14 47.2141
Mountain West Conference 119-120-4 49.7908
Pacific-10 Conference 153-137-3 52.7586
Southeastern Conference 184-144-10 56.0976
Sun Belt Conference 81-104-2 43.7838
Western Athletic Conference 145-134-5 51.9713

The SEC being the highest here should come as no surprise. The SEC is the most competitive conference and is home to some of the most difficult places to play. Following those lines, let take one more stab at a macro trend and see if home and away makes a difference (again showing only games with a returning starter vs. teams w/o a returning starter at QB):

Teams ATS Record ATS Winning Percentage
All 2001-2010 Home Teams w/ Returning Starter at QB 773-744-36 50.9558
All 2001-2010 Away Teams w/ Returning Starter at QB 796-781-25 50.4756

Similar to the result above, nothing significantly above 50% to get even remotely excited about. A prevailing theory at this point could be that the games over the span of the season seem to average out any experience effect. Not to be deterred, let’s look and see if games early in the season, notably September, break any differently:

Teams ATS Record ATS Winning Percentage
All 2001-2010 Teams w/ Returning Starter at QB in September 496-453-18 52.2655

Somewhat expected here, only a little better than the 50% we see as a macro trend. So from everything we’ve seen thus far, Vegas is on top of accounting for the experience of returning quarterbacks and factoring that into the lines. At CBTS though, we like to look at trends based on coaches. To that end, let’s see which active coaches are are the best against the spread with and without returning starters at the QB position (sorted by difference between the two records):

Coach Record w/o RS at QB Win % Record w/ RS at QB Win % ATS WP Difference
Bret Bielema 9-15-0 37.5000 22-13-1 62.8571 25.3571
Larry Blakeney 12-13-0 48.0000 17-7-0 70.8333 22.8333
Butch Jones 4-7-0 36.3636 21-15-2 58.3333 21.9697
Turner Gill 9-13-0 40.9091 23-14-1 62.1622 21.2531
Bobby Petrino 18-18-0 50.0000 33-15-0 68.7500 18.7500
Robb Akey 3-8-0 27.2727 16-19-1 45.7143 18.4416
Tommy Tuberville 18-27-1 40.0000 35-26-0 57.3770 17.3770
Kyle Whittingham 31-31-1 50.0000 8-4-0 66.6667 16.6667
Todd Berry 9-14-1 39.1304 12-10-0 54.5455 15.4150
David Bailiff 10-13-1 43.4783 14-10-0 58.3333 14.8551
Bill Cubit 6-13-3 31.5789 21-25-0 45.6522 14.0732
Greg McMackin 6-6-1 50.0000 16-9-0 64.0000 14.0000
Gary Patterson 17-20-1 45.9459 49-33-0 59.7561 13.8102
Chris Ault 5-7-0 41.6667 41-33-0 55.4054 13.7387
Pat Hill 14-24-0 36.8421 44-43-0 50.5747 13.7326
Rich Ellerson 4-7-0 36.3636 6-6-0 50.0000 13.6364
Mark Richt 25-35-1 41.6667 32-27-3 54.2373 12.5706
Dave Clawson 5-7-0 41.6667 7-6-0 53.8462 12.1795
Mack Brown 16-21-0 43.2432 49-40-2 55.0562 11.8129
Les Miles 26-33-4 44.0678 30-26-3 53.5714 9.5036
Bob Toledo 13-21-0 38.2353 16-18-1 47.0588 8.8235
Bill Snyder 22-22-0 50.0000 20-14-0 58.8235 8.8235
Steve Spurrier 18-16-2 52.9412 29-18-1 61.7021 8.7610
Jim Grobe 19-25-0 43.1818 37-35-1 51.3889 8.2071
Frank Solich 28-27-3 50.9091 30-21-1 58.8235 7.9144
Pat Fitzgerald 14-21-0 40.0000 11-12-0 47.8261 7.8261
Brady Hoke 5-5-1 50.0000 45-34-2 56.9620 6.9620
Derek Dooley 12-11-1 52.1739 13-9-0 59.0909 6.9170
Mark Dantonio 16-18-1 47.0588 25-22-2 53.1915 6.1327
Gary Pinkel 16-17-1 48.4848 45-39-1 53.5714 5.0866
David Cutcliffe 5-5-1 50.0000 11-9-1 55.0000 5.0000
Al Golden 27-19-1 58.6957 7-4-1 63.6364 4.9407
Nick Saban 27-22-1 55.1020 30-20-1 60.0000 4.8980
Jeff Tedford 17-19-1 47.2222 37-35-1 51.3889 4.1667
Ken Niumatalolo 6-6-1 50.0000 13-11-0 54.1667 4.1667
Mario Cristobal 11-13-1 45.8333 12-12-0 50.0000 4.1667
Chip Kelly 6-6-0 50.0000 7-6-0 53.8462 3.8462
Howard Schnellenberger 16-20-0 44.4444 12-13-0 48.0000 3.5556
Bob Stoops 34-32-1 51.5152 35-29-2 54.6875 3.1723
Houston Nutt 38-33-0 53.5211 26-20-1 56.5217 3.0006
Skip Holtz 21-17-0 55.2632 22-16-0 57.8947 2.6316
Chris Petersen 14-8-2 63.6364 25-13-0 65.7895 2.1531
Troy Calhoun 7-5-0 58.3333 21-14-1 60.0000 1.6667
Frank Beamer 29-21-0 58.0000 45-31-1 59.2105 1.2105
Mike Stoops 6-6-0 50.0000 33-32-2 50.7692 0.7692
Frank Spaziani 6-6-0 50.0000 6-6-0 50.0000 0.0000
Dan McCarney 15-17-1 46.8750 16-19-0 45.7143 -1.1607
Mike Riley 27-19-1 58.6957 28-21-0 57.1429 -1.5528
Art Briles 12-11-0 52.1739 35-35-1 50.0000 -2.1739
Brian Kelly 35-23-4 60.3448 12-9-2 57.1429 -3.2020
Dan Mullen 7-5-0 58.3333 6-5-0 54.5455 -3.7879
Randy Edsall 29-16-0 64.4444 40-26-1 60.6061 -3.8384
Paul Johnson 35-22-0 61.4035 27-20-1 57.4468 -3.9567
Bronco Mendenhall 14-11-0 56.0000 25-24-0 51.0204 -4.9796
Ron Zook 17-18-0 48.5714 30-39-1 43.4783 -5.0932
Joe Paterno 31-27-2 53.4483 28-31-1 47.4576 -5.9906
Larry Fedora 14-11-0 56.0000 6-6-0 50.0000 -6.0000
Rocky Long 7-5-0 58.3333 43-40-0 51.8072 -6.5261
Tom O’Brien 30-18-1 62.5000 38-31-0 55.0725 -7.4275
Ron English 5-7-0 41.6667 4-8-0 33.3333 -8.3333
Todd Graham 21-15-1 58.3333 13-13-0 50.0000 -8.3333
George O’Leary 24-14-0 63.1579 13-11-0 54.1667 -8.9912
June Jones 7-5-0 58.3333 53-55-2 49.0741 -9.2593
Neil Callaway 17-16-1 51.5152 5-7-0 41.6667 -9.8485
Gene Chizik 15-9-0 62.5000 12-11-0 52.1739 -10.3261
Mike Price 13-9-0 59.0909 38-43-1 46.9136 -12.1773
Lane Kiffin 7-6-0 53.8462 5-7-1 41.6667 -12.1795
Bo Pelini 16-11-0 59.2593 6-7-0 46.1538 -13.1054
Dennis Erickson 20-13-0 60.6061 20-25-0 44.4444 -16.1616
Tim Beckman 7-5-1 58.3333 5-7-0 41.6667 -16.6667
DeWayne Walker 6-6-0 50.0000 4-8-0 33.3333 -16.6667
Greg Schiano 28-16-2 63.6364 31-35-1 46.9697 -16.6667
Kirk Ferentz 41-20-1 67.2131 29-29-1 50.0000 -17.2131
Dabo Swinney 8-5-0 61.5385 5-7-0 41.6667 -19.8718
Rick Neuheisel 20-17-0 54.0541 8-16-1 33.3333 -20.7207
Dave Christensen 9-3-0 75.0000 5-5-1 50.0000 -25.0000
Paul Pasqualoni 23-14-0 62.1622 4-7-0 36.3636 -25.7985
Rick Stockstill 29-19-0 60.4167 4-8-0 33.3333 -27.0833
Mike Gundy 10-3-0 76.9231 27-28-2 49.0909 -27.8322
Paul Wulff 16-19-0 45.7143 0-0-0
Danny Hope 10-10-3 50.0000 0-0-0
Mike London 4-6-0 40.0000 0-0-0
Doug Marrone 12-10-0 54.5455 0-0-0
Larry Porter 5-7-0 41.6667 0-0-0
Steve Sarkisian 0-0-0 14-11-0 56.0000
Dan Enos 5-6-0 45.4545 0-0-0
Mike Sherman 0-0-0 17-19-1 47.2222
Rob Ianello 0-0-0 5-6-0 45.4545
Jimbo Fisher 0-0-0 7-6-0 53.8462
Jerry Kill 0-0-0 21-14-2 60.0000
Willie Taggart 7-5-0 58.3333 0-0-0
Mike Locksley 9-15-0 37.5000 0-0-0
Joker Phillips 6-6-0 50.0000 0-0-0
Mike Macintyre 0-0-0 5-6-0 45.4545
Kevin Sumlin 0-0-0 17-19-0 47.2222
Gary Andersen 0-0-0 13-9-0 59.0909
Jeff Quinn 1-10-0 9.0909 0-0-0
Paul Rhoads 0-0-0 12-11-0 52.1739
Ruffin McNeill 0-0-0 6-7-0 46.1538
Charlie Strong 0-0-0 7-5-0 58.3333
Steve Fairchild 17-18-0 48.5714 0-0-0
Doc Holliday 0-0-0 4-8-0 33.3333
Sonny Dykes 5-6-0 45.4545 0-0-0
Bobby Hauck 0-0-0 5-8-0 38.4615

Now this data starts getting really interesting in that certain coaches are much better (and worse) than others when it comes to having a returning starter at the QB position. What we can infer from this data is that some coaches are better at getting inexperienced QBs into their systems, and more importantly, getting them to exceed even Vegas’ expectations. Obviously, not all of the above coaches have a sample set of data that is large enough to take too much from, but quite a few do. Numbers for any gambler are only the starting point. How we look at Bret Bielema and discern whether or not Russell Wilson should count as a starter is in the eye of the beholder. But knowing the effect or lack thereof of returning starters is still an important piece of information. Clearly, at a macro level, there is not much to be gained by leveraging returning starter data at the quarterback position. Looking at the coaches, however, introduces a wide variance amidst Vegas’ perceived balance of setting these lines.

Active Coaches and ATS Teaser Records

Every gambler knows that getting an extra 6-7 points on a line can make a huge difference. Some gamblers like the teaser bet, some don’t. Usually the math behind it makes it seem like a fools bet. Others have lots of success using it. If you are of the latter, we’ve compiled a list of all of the 2011 active coaches and their ATS teaser record since 2001. We used the standard 6 point teaser for our calculation. Here are the results, sorted by overall winning percentage:

Coach Team Wins Losses Pushes Winning %
Charlie Strong Louisville 11 2 0 84.62
Mike Macintyre San Jose St. 10 2 0 83.33
Chris Petersen Boise St. 51 11 0 82.26
Troy Calhoun Air Force 39 9 0 81.25
Kyle Whittingham Utah 58 16 1 78.38
Jim Grobe Wake Forest 88 26 4 77.19
Chip Kelly Oregon 20 6 0 76.92
Gene Chizik Auburn 36 11 1 76.60
Bobby Petrino Arkansas 65 20 0 76.47
Brian Kelly Notre Dame 65 20 1 76.47
Gary Patterson TCU 92 29 0 76.03
Rocky Long San Diego St. 70 23 2 75.27
Willie Taggart Western Ky. 9 3 0 75.00
Nick Saban Alabama 75 25 2 75.00
Bret Bielema Wisconsin 44 15 2 74.58
Kirk Ferentz Iowa 89 31 1 74.17
Dave Christensen Wyoming 17 6 0 73.91
Larry Blakeney Troy 36 13 0 73.47
Joe Paterno Penn St. 87 32 2 73.11
Jerry Kill Minnesota 27 10 2 72.97
Skip Holtz South Florida 54 20 2 72.97
Al Golden Miami 43 16 0 72.88
Les Miles LSU 88 33 1 72.73
Mark Dantonio Michigan St. 61 23 1 72.62
Tommy Tuberville Texas Tech 78 30 0 72.22
George O’Leary UCF 44 17 1 72.13
Chris Ault Nevada 62 24 1 72.09
Dabo Swinney Clemson 18 7 1 72.00
Randy Edsall Maryland 82 32 0 71.93
David Cutcliffe Duke 23 9 1 71.88
Greg McMackin Hawaii 27 11 1 71.05
Ken Niumatalolo Navy 27 11 0 71.05
Larry Fedora Southern Miss. 27 11 0 71.05
Brady Hoke Michigan 66 27 0 70.97
Houston Nutt Ole Miss 83 34 1 70.94
Frank Spaziani Boston College 17 7 0 70.83
Mike Riley Oregon St. 68 28 0 70.83
Paul Rhoads Iowa St. 17 7 0 70.83
Bo Pelini Nebraska 29 12 0 70.73
Pat Fitzgerald Northwestern 41 17 1 70.69
Turner Gill Kansas 43 18 0 70.49
Frank Beamer Virginia Tech 88 37 3 70.40
Tom O’Brien NC State 82 35 2 70.09
Mike Stoops Arizona 56 24 1 70.00
Butch Jones Cincinnati 35 15 0 70.00
Dan Mullen Mississippi St. 16 7 0 69.57
Bronco Mendenhall BYU 50 22 2 69.44
Paul Johnson Georgia Tech 72 32 1 69.23
Ruffin McNeill East Carolina 9 4 0 69.23
Steve Spurrier South Carolina 58 26 1 69.05
Bob Stoops Oklahoma 91 42 1 68.42
Mack Brown Texas 86 40 2 68.25
Greg Schiano Rutgers 79 37 0 68.10
Dave Clawson Bowling Green 17 8 0 68.00
Steve Sarkisian Washington 17 8 0 68.00
Derek Dooley Tennessee 31 15 0 67.39
Mark Richt Georgia 82 40 2 67.21
Frank Solich Ohio 73 36 1 66.97
Mike Gundy Oklahoma St. 48 24 0 66.67
Dennis Erickson Arizona St. 52 26 1 66.67
Mario Cristobal FIU 32 16 1 66.67
Doug Marrone Syracuse 16 8 1 66.67
Gary Pinkel Missouri 78 40 2 66.10
Rick Stockstill Middle Tenn. 39 20 2 66.10
Art Briles Baylor 61 33 1 64.89
Paul Pasqualoni UConn 31 17 0 64.58
Bill Cubit Western Mich. 45 25 0 64.29
Bill Snyder Kansas St. 50 28 3 64.10
David Bailiff Rice 30 17 1 63.83
Jeff Tedford California 70 40 1 63.64
Rich Ellerson Army 14 8 1 63.64
June Jones SMU 77 44 2 63.64
Todd Graham Pittsburgh 41 24 0 63.08
Kevin Sumlin Houston 22 13 1 62.86
Danny Hope Purdue 15 9 0 62.50
Robb Akey Idaho 28 17 3 62.22
Mike Sherman Texas A&M 23 14 0 62.16
Pat Hill Fresno St. 77 47 1 62.10
Todd Berry UL-Monroe 29 18 0 61.70
Jimbo Fisher Florida St. 8 5 0 61.54
Joker Phillips Kentucky 8 5 0 61.54
Bob Toledo Tulane 43 27 1 61.43
Ron Zook Illinois 65 41 1 61.32
Howard Schnellenberger Fla. Atlantic 37 24 0 60.66
Dan McCarney North Texas 40 26 2 60.61
Tim Beckman Toledo 15 10 0 60.00
Mike Price UTEP 61 42 1 59.22
Neil Callaway UAB 27 19 0 58.70
Gary Andersen Utah St. 14 10 0 58.33
Dan Enos Central Mich. 7 5 0 58.33
DeWayne Walker New Mexico St. 14 10 1 58.33
Doc Holliday Marshall 7 5 0 58.33
Lane Kiffin Southern California 15 11 0 57.69
Steve Fairchild Colorado St. 20 16 0 55.56
Rick Neuheisel UCLA 34 28 0 54.84
Mike London Virginia 6 5 0 54.55
Mike Locksley New Mexico 13 11 0 54.17
Ron English Eastern Mich. 13 11 0 54.17
Paul Wulff Washington St. 19 17 0 52.78
Rob Ianello Akron 6 6 0 50.00
Larry Porter Memphis 6 6 0 50.00
Bobby Hauck UNLV 6 7 0 46.15
Sonny Dykes Louisiana Tech 5 6 0 45.45
Jeff Quinn Buffalo 4 8 0 33.33

Contrasting these results with our Head Coach ATS Ranking, you can see the noticeable difference that 6 points has on the outcome of a game.


New Parlay Odds at BetOnline