Sunday, June 29, 2008

A Non-Conference Scheduling Report: Who Likes a Challenge?

Alright, let's start putting this new season in perspective, shall we?

This study attempts to quantify each DI-A team's tendencies when it comes to arranging their non-conference schedules - do they prefer to play a challenging schedule, an easy schedule, or somewhere in between? The table below lists each team along with relevant numbers and figures for the past ten (BCS) years in four major categories. I chose these particular categories not only because is there a proven correlation between them and how difficult an opponent actual ends up being, but also because these are some of the general areas that coaches and administrators take into account when arranging non-conf schedules. Onto the categories...

Category #1. Home vs Away games (light red): Mathematically, playing at home always provides an advantage. In the history of college football, home teams have won an average of 64.1% of the games and have never failed to win at least 54.5% of a single season's games. During the BCS years, the home team has won an even higher average of 62.3% of the games. So a team that is willing to play on the road is accepting a more difficult challenge than those who stay at home.

Category #2. BCS vs non-BCS vs I-AA teams (orange): It’s probably no surprise that with few exceptions, I-A teams beat up on I-AA teams – BCS and non-BCS teams have winning percentages of 93.7% and 82.6% against I-AA teams respectively. It might be somewhat shocking to see that BCS teams beat up on non-BCS teams with about the same regularity, racking up an 82.4% winning percentage during the ten years of the BCS. And when a BCS team plays at home against a non-BCS foe, that winning percentage goes up to 87.4%. So overall, teams that schedule BCS teams as opposed to non-BCS or I-AA teams are accepting a more difficult challenge than those who don’t. Of course, there are stronger and weaker BCS or non-BCS teams – that’s where category #3 comes in.

Category #3. Wins – 5-Year Average & Highest Win Season (yellow): The first one’s pretty self-explanatory – the higher the average wins over the last five seasons, the more challenging the opponent. The highest win component speaks more towards risk and predictability – the bigger the difference between a team’s average wins and their highest win total, the more erratic their performance. For instance, if a team averages 5 wins per season and their highest win total over those seasons is 7, they’re a pretty reliable .500 team. However, if they average 5 wins and their highest total is 11 wins, they’re much less predictable – they could be really good or really bad any given year. Teams looking for a challenge aren’t afraid to schedule teams with a high 5-year average or high win total.

The math backs up these categories too - in matchups, the team with the higher 5-year win average wins 67.4% of games, and the team with the higher seasonal win total wins 68.1% of games. Not only that, but the bigger the difference between teams' averages, the more likely it is that the team with the better average will win. (If you're interested in seeing all of the data and tables that support these assertions, click here.)

Category #4. Votes in the Final Coach’s Poll – Top 10’s & Zero votes (green): Finally, these two categories look at both ends of the voting spectrum, measuring how many opponents have either a top 10 ranking (called "elite" teams in this study) or zero votes in the last five final Coach’s polls. The rankings are important because they show what the coaches actually thought of their competition once the season ended - it's relevant info coming directly from the people who make the decision on who their teams will play. This is a different way of looking at strength and predictability – a team with a top 10 finish in the last five years is going to be more challenging that one that doesn’t, while a team with zero votes in the last five years isn’t going to be as challenging as one who has earned votes. (Again, the math backs up these categories as well - in matchups, the team with more votes in the last 5 years wins 68.6% of games, and the percentage goes up as the difference in votes does.)

A few quick points...

• Most importantly, this is NOT a study of how difficult a team’s non-conf schedule actually was. Instead, this study attempts to measure how difficult a non-conf schedule a team tried to arrange. For instance, Illinois and Missouri played one of the toughest, most important non-conf games of the season in 2007, the Tigers finishing with 12 wins and the Illini making it to the Rose Bowl. Even though the game ended up being difficult for each of them, their opponents' previous seasons don't indicate that they were trying to set up such a challenging game when they scheduled each other. (They probably thought they'd be getting a solid, but average BCS team.)

• Also important is that this isn’t an attempt to determine or prove any of the underlying reasons teams schedule challenging or non-challenging non-conf games. Common sense might say that in an LSU-Louisiana Tech matchup, LSU gets an easy home win and stadium revenues, while Louisiana Tech gets a payout and the chance for a program-building upset. But I’ve tried to stay away from getting into those reasons here, mainly because I don’t have the evidence to support it.

• All of the statistics cover a team’s performance from the five previous seasons. So the data from Ohio State in 2004 are their wins, averages, and votes from 1999-2003. There’s a couple of reasons I chose a 5-year span. First, it covers the vast majority, if not all, of the time when non-conference games are scheduled. Five years ahead of time is usually the max, and the minimum can be up to 6 months before kickoff, as we’ve seen this off-season. And normal scheduling time is 2-3 years beforehand, which falls right in the middle of our timespan.

• Bowl games, while non-conf by nature, are NOT included for the sole reason that teams don’t get to choose their bowl opponents.

• I-AA teams count as zeros across the board as far as average wins, votes, etc. (I use “zAA” as a designator for I-AA in some places – it’s just shorthand I picked up along the way.)

• Notre Dame and other Independent teams aren’t included because their seasons are made up entirely of non-conference opponents. However, those Independent teams are included on other teams’ non-conference schedules.

The columns are sortable and the headers pretty straightforward, but you can click on the "legend" link in the upper left corner above the table for an explanation if you need. If the value or percentage is in blue, it means that it's ranked in the top 20 compared to the other values or percentages. Red means that it's ranked in the bottom 20. *Click on each individual team name to see my analysis of them, a list of all their non-conf opponents, and what they have in store for 2008.

(legend)

Non-Conference Scheduling
Conf Team Gm vs @ v %vs BCS non AA %BCS avW 10+ 10+% T10 T% 0 0%
ACC Boston College 42 25 17 0 59.5% 16 22 4 38.1% 4.6 11 26.2% 1 02.4% 16 38.1%
ACC Clemson 34 25 8 1 73.5% 17 12 5 50.0% 4.5 6 17.6% 4 11.8% 16 47.1%
ACC Duke 34 18 16 0 52.9% 17 12 5 50.0% 4.5 10 29.4% 5 14.7% 14 41.2%
ACC Florida St 37 21 12 4 56.8% 26 10 1 70.3% 7.4 23 62.2% 19 51.4% 7 18.9%
ACC Georgia Tech 35 22 12 1 62.9% 20 11 4 57.1% 5.7 15 42.9% 11 31.4% 12 34.3%
ACC Maryland 35 22 11 2 62.9% 16 13 6 45.7% 3.7 6 17.1% 3 08.6% 21 60.0%
ACC Miami (FL) 41 26 13 2 63.4% 21 15 5 51.2% 6.3 20 48.8% 18 43.9% 14 34.1%
ACC NC State 36 25 10 1 69.4% 11 17 8 30.6% 4.4 4 11.1% 3 08.3% 22 61.1%
ACC North Carolina 35 20 14 1 57.1% 19 12 4 54.3% 5.6 12 34.3% 6 17.1% 13 37.1%
ACC Virginia 36 21 15 0 58.3% 18 16 2 50.0% 5.9 15 41.7% 10 27.8% 12 33.3%
ACC Virginia Tech 42 30 11 1 71.4% 16 21 5 38.1% 5.4 7 16.7% 4 09.5% 19 45.2%
ACC Wake Forest 34 21 13 0 61.8% 13 16 5 38.2% 4.5 7 20.6% 1 02.9% 15 44.1%
Big10 Illinois 34 22 9 3 64.7% 14 15 5 41.2% 4.1 4 11.8% 3 08.8% 18 52.9%
Big10 Indiana 34 21 13 0 61.8% 14 15 5 41.2% 4.4 3 08.8% 3 08.8% 19 55.9%
Big10 Iowa 35 23 10 2 65.7% 18 15 2 51.4% 5.2 10 28.6% 4 11.4% 18 51.4%
Big10 Michigan 35 26 9 0 74.3% 16 18 1 45.7% 6.0 14 40.0% 5 14.3% 14 40.0%
Big10 Michigan St 36 26 10 0 72.2% 19 17 0 52.8% 5.9 11 30.6% 2 05.6% 14 38.9%
Big10 Minnesota 34 24 9 1 70.6% 2 26 6 05.9% 3.5 8 23.5% 1 02.9% 25 73.5%
Big10 Northwestern 36 20 15 1 55.6% 11 23 2 30.6% 4.6 9 25.0% 2 05.6% 20 55.6%
Big10 Ohio St 36 28 7 1 77.8% 15 20 1 41.7% 6.3 17 47.2% 10 27.8% 12 33.3%
Big10 Penn St 36 27 8 1 75.0% 18 17 1 50.0% 5.6 8 22.2% 5 13.9% 17 47.2%
Big10 Purdue 36 24 12 0 66.7% 16 17 3 44.4% 5.5 11 30.6% 2 05.6% 15 41.7%
Big10 Wisconsin 38 27 10 1 71.1% 10 24 4 26.3% 4.9 8 21.1% 3 07.9% 19 50.0%
Big12 Baylor 34 21 12 1 61.8% 7 20 7 20.6% 3.4 4 11.8% 4 11.8% 23 67.6%
Big12 Colorado 34 18 7 9 52.9% 14 19 1 41.2% 7.0 19 55.9% 8 23.5% 6 17.6%
Big12 Iowa St 35 24 10 1 68.6% 11 16 8 31.4% 4.2 8 22.9% 6 17.1% 20 57.1%
Big12 Kansas 35 27 8 0 77.1% 5 21 9 14.3% 3.5 5 14.3% 1 02.9% 24 68.6%
Big12 Kansas St 36 30 4 2 83.3% 7 20 9 19.4% 3.9 6 16.7% 3 08.3% 25 69.4%
Big12 Missouri 34 21 9 4 61.8% 9 19 6 26.5% 3.9 7 20.6% 3 08.8% 25 73.5%
Big12 Nebraska 37 29 8 0 78.4% 16 17 4 43.2% 5.1 6 16.2% 2 05.4% 17 45.9%
Big12 Oklahoma 35 26 9 0 74.3% 11 23 1 31.4% 5.4 11 31.4% 8 22.9% 15 42.9%
Big12 Oklahoma St 34 22 9 3 64.7% 5 22 7 14.7% 3.6 2 05.9% 2 05.9% 24 70.6%
Big12 Texas 35 24 11 0 68.6% 11 23 1 31.4% 5.3 8 22.9% 8 22.9% 20 57.1%
Big12 Texas A&M 35 24 8 3 68.6% 10 21 4 28.6% 5.2 7 20.0% 4 11.4% 15 42.9%
Big12 Texas Tech 36 21 15 0 58.3% 6 24 6 16.7% 4.2 5 13.9% 3 08.3% 22 61.1%
BigEast Cincinnati 44 25 19 0 56.8% 20 19 5 45.5% 5.7 20 45.5% 8 18.2% 16 36.4%
BigEast Connecticut 19 13 6 0 68.4% 7 8 4 36.8% 3.0 1 05.3% 0 00.0% 15 78.9%
BigEast Louisville 44 26 17 1 59.1% 27 12 5 61.4% 4.7 12 27.3% 8 18.2% 19 43.2%
BigEast Pittsburgh 45 30 15 0 66.7% 19 20 6 42.2% 5.4 16 35.6% 7 15.6% 20 44.4%
BigEast Rutgers 45 28 17 0 62.2% 14 24 7 31.1% 3.5 11 24.4% 3 06.7% 26 57.8%
BigEast South Florida 20 11 8 1 55.0% 9 5 6 45.0% 3.7 3 15.0% 3 15.0% 13 65.0%
BigEast Syracuse 46 26 19 1 56.5% 23 22 1 50.0% 6.4 23 50.0% 11 23.9% 13 28.3%
BigEast West Virginia 45 29 15 1 64.4% 19 22 4 42.2% 5.5 14 31.1% 10 22.2% 19 42.2%
CUSA East Carolina 40 18 20 2 45.0% 34 4 2 85.0% 5.7 13 32.5% 9 22.5% 10 25.0%
CUSA Houston 40 19 20 1 47.5% 22 15 3 55.0% 5.7 18 45.0% 12 30.0% 18 45.0%
CUSA Marshall 33 16 17 0 48.5% 19 3 11 57.6% 4.7 15 45.5% 15 45.5% 16 48.5%
CUSA Memphis 40 25 15 0 62.5% 22 11 7 55.0% 4.8 13 32.5% 5 12.5% 19 47.5%
CUSA Rice 35 11 23 1 31.4% 21 13 1 60.0% 5.9 15 42.9% 11 31.4% 14 40.0%
CUSA SMU 37 19 18 0 51.4% 19 16 2 51.4% 5.6 11 29.7% 6 16.2% 9 24.3%
CUSA Southern Miss 40 16 22 2 40.0% 26 9 5 65.0% 6.0 23 57.5% 17 42.5% 13 32.5%
CUSA Tulane 41 19 20 2 46.3% 15 20 6 36.6% 4.5 10 24.4% 6 14.6% 22 53.7%
CUSA Tulsa 37 19 17 1 51.4% 17 14 6 45.9% 4.8 11 29.7% 6 16.2% 17 45.9%
CUSA UAB 36 14 22 0 38.9% 22 10 4 61.1% 4.8 12 33.3% 10 27.8% 18 50.0%
CUSA UCF 22 9 13 0 40.9% 17 2 3 77.3% 6.0 9 40.9% 4 18.2% 5 22.7%
CUSA UTEP 37 17 19 1 45.9% 14 16 7 37.8% 4.8 7 18.9% 5 13.5% 21 56.8%
MAC Akron 33 9 23 1 27.3% 20 10 3 60.6% 5.1 9 27.3% 7 21.2% 16 48.5%
MAC Ball St 37 10 27 0 27.0% 25 6 6 67.6% 4.8 10 27.0% 6 16.2% 15 40.5%
MAC Bowling Green 34 11 22 1 32.4% 21 7 6 61.8% 4.6 9 26.5% 5 14.7% 18 52.9%
MAC Buffalo 31 11 20 0 35.5% 20 7 4 64.5% 3.9 8 25.8% 3 09.7% 17 54.8%
MAC Central Michigan 35 13 22 0 37.1% 19 8 8 54.3% 4.3 7 20.0% 4 11.4% 17 48.6%
MAC Eastern Michigan 36 14 20 2 38.9% 17 10 9 47.2% 3.8 8 22.2% 7 19.4% 22 61.1%
MAC Kent St 34 12 22 0 35.3% 17 8 9 50.0% 3.9 8 23.5% 5 14.7% 16 47.1%
MAC Miami (OH) 36 9 27 0 25.0% 24 11 1 66.7% 5.9 13 36.1% 9 25.0% 10 27.8%
MAC Northern Illinois 37 16 20 1 43.2% 20 7 10 54.1% 4.3 13 35.1% 11 29.7% 17 45.9%
MAC Ohio 34 12 22 0 35.3% 23 4 7 67.6% 4.6 6 17.6% 5 14.7% 12 35.3%
MAC Temple 35 17 18 0 48.6% 11 20 4 31.4% 4.8 12 34.3% 4 11.4% 17 48.6%
MAC Toledo 35 20 15 0 57.1% 19 8 8 54.3% 4.3 5 14.3% 2 05.7% 18 51.4%
MAC Western Michigan 35 13 22 0 37.1% 23 4 8 65.7% 5.1 12 34.3% 11 31.4% 15 42.9%
Mtn West Air Force 41 23 15 3 56.1% 13 22 6 31.7% 4.0 12 29.3% 3 07.3% 17 41.5%
Mtn West BYU 44 23 20 1 52.3% 27 14 3 61.4% 6.0 17 38.6% 6 13.6% 13 29.5%
Mtn West Colorado St 42 15 19 8 35.7% 19 18 5 45.2% 5.8 21 50.0% 13 31.0% 10 23.8%
Mtn West New Mexico 43 23 20 0 53.5% 15 21 7 34.9% 3.9 4 09.3% 3 07.0% 27 62.8%
Mtn West San Diego St 42 19 23 0 45.2% 26 9 7 61.9% 5.4 18 42.9% 15 35.7% 13 31.0%
Mtn West TCU 35 18 17 0 51.4% 18 15 2 51.4% 4.5 7 20.0% 7 20.0% 22 62.9%
Mtn West UNLV 41 17 23 1 41.5% 18 22 1 43.9% 5.6 14 34.1% 9 22.0% 15 36.6%
Mtn West Utah 38 20 18 0 52.6% 21 16 1 55.3% 5.2 13 34.2% 8 21.1% 20 52.6%
Mtn West Wyoming 40 20 19 1 50.0% 17 17 6 42.5% 5.3 15 37.5% 6 15.0% 18 45.0%
Pac10 Arizona 34 23 11 0 67.6% 9 20 5 26.5% 5.3 11 32.4% 7 20.6% 13 38.2%
Pac10 Arizona St 33 24 9 0 72.7% 13 17 3 39.4% 5.2 9 27.3% 8 24.2% 15 45.5%
Pac10 California 33 18 14 1 54.5% 15 16 2 45.5% 6.1 14 42.4% 8 24.2% 10 30.3%
Pac10 Oregon 32 22 10 0 68.8% 11 18 3 34.4% 5.8 12 37.5% 6 18.8% 11 34.4%
Pac10 Oregon St 33 20 13 0 60.6% 5 20 8 15.2% 5.1 10 30.3% 3 09.1% 15 45.5%
Pac10 Stanford 30 19 11 0 63.3% 15 14 1 50.0% 6.0 14 46.7% 3 10.0% 10 33.3%
Pac10 UCLA 32 19 13 0 59.4% 18 14 0 56.3% 6.6 19 59.4% 12 37.5% 9 28.1%
Pac10 USC 37 21 14 2 56.8% 24 13 0 64.9% 7.2 22 59.5% 9 24.3% 4 10.8%
Pac10 Washington 33 23 10 0 69.7% 14 19 0 42.4% 7.2 18 54.5% 13 39.4% 7 21.2%
Pac10 Washington St 33 17 11 5 51.5% 8 22 3 24.2% 4.5 9 27.3% 6 18.2% 17 51.5%
SEC Alabama 36 26 4 6 72.2% 6 28 2 16.7% 5.4 9 25.0% 6 16.7% 15 41.7%
SEC Arkansas 34 20 4 10 58.8% 4 25 5 11.8% 3.8 6 17.6% 4 11.8% 26 76.5%
SEC Auburn 34 31 3 0 91.2% 10 18 6 29.4% 4.4 6 17.6% 3 08.8% 20 58.8%
SEC Florida 34 28 6 0 82.4% 12 18 4 35.3% 5.9 13 38.2% 13 38.2% 19 55.9%
SEC Georgia 34 28 6 0 82.4% 14 15 5 41.2% 5.2 9 26.5% 2 05.9% 17 50.0%
SEC Kentucky 34 25 9 0 73.5% 11 17 6 32.4% 4.0 6 17.6% 3 08.8% 23 67.6%
SEC LSU 34 29 5 0 85.3% 7 23 4 20.6% 4.4 8 23.5% 6 17.6% 24 70.6%
SEC Mississippi 34 25 9 0 73.5% 5 25 4 14.7% 3.8 2 05.9% 2 05.9% 23 67.6%
SEC Mississippi St 34 22 11 1 64.7% 6 22 6 17.6% 4.0 7 20.6% 7 20.6% 25 73.5%
SEC South Carolina 34 26 8 0 76.5% 15 16 3 44.1% 4.7 2 05.9% 0 00.0% 17 50.0%
SEC Tennessee 34 26 7 1 76.5% 12 22 0 35.3% 6.1 10 29.4% 5 14.7% 14 41.2%
SEC Vanderbilt 34 24 10 0 70.6% 12 14 8 35.3% 3.3 7 20.6% 1 02.9% 23 67.6%
SunBelt Arkansas St 48 18 27 3 37.5% 22 17 9 45.8% 4.5 9 18.8% 5 10.4% 22 45.8%
SunBelt FL Atlantic 14 2 10 2 14.3% 13 0 1 92.9% 6.4 5 35.7% 3 21.4% 2 14.3%
SunBelt Florida Intl 14 4 10 0 28.6% 11 1 2 78.6% 6.8 9 64.3% 6 42.9% 3 21.4%
SunBelt LA Lafayette 35 14 21 0 40.0% 15 14 6 42.9% 5.0 7 20.0% 5 14.3% 18 51.4%
SunBelt LA Monroe 34 11 20 3 32.4% 18 9 7 52.9% 4.9 8 23.5% 7 20.6% 14 41.2%
SunBelt Middle Tenn St 33 11 20 2 33.3% 22 7 4 66.7% 5.3 12 36.4% 9 27.3% 14 42.4%
SunBelt North Texas 50 16 33 1 32.0% 27 20 3 54.0% 5.4 21 42.0% 16 32.0% 19 38.0%
SunBelt Troy 18 5 13 0 27.8% 12 3 3 66.7% 6.1 7 38.9% 6 33.3% 5 27.8%
WAC Boise St 46 26 18 2 56.5% 13 22 11 28.3% 4.5 14 30.4% 11 23.9% 17 37.0%
WAC Fresno St 41 17 24 0 41.5% 26 10 5 63.4% 6.7 27 65.9% 20 48.8% 9 22.0%
WAC Hawaii 44 37 6 1 84.1% 18 18 8 40.9% 4.7 15 34.1% 13 29.5% 20 45.5%
WAC Idaho 49 9 35 5 18.4% 25 12 12 51.0% 5.2 27 55.1% 18 36.7% 17 34.7%
WAC Louisiana Tech 27 4 21 2 14.8% 21 4 2 77.8% 6.6 14 51.9% 10 37.0% 5 18.5%
WAC Nevada 41 20 20 1 48.8% 12 25 4 29.3% 5.3 15 36.6% 5 12.2% 18 43.9%
WAC New Mexico St 52 20 32 0 38.5% 19 27 6 36.5% 5.1 15 28.8% 10 19.2% 22 42.3%
WAC San Jose St 38 11 26 1 28.9% 27 4 7 71.1% 5.0 12 31.6% 9 23.7% 13 34.2%
WAC Utah St 38 14 24 0 36.8% 14 20 4 36.8% 6.0 17 44.7% 14 36.8% 11 28.9%

When it comes to determining the most challenging non-conf schedules over the BCS years, a lot of it depends on how much you personally value each category, making the task pretty subjective.

But as difficult as that is, determining the least challenging non-conf schedules is rather easy - you just find the ones that are at the bottom of all categories. In the BCS years, looking at over 1,200 team-seasons, there are 11 instances of teams scheduling all of their season's non-conf games...

* at home
* against only non-BCS or I-AA opponents
* against opponents who combined to average under 4 wins per season for the previous five seasons
* against opponents who had 0 10+win seasons in the previous five seasons
* against opponents who had 0 Top 10 finishes in the previous five seasons
* against opponents who had 0 votes in the previous five final coach's polls.

In order of weakness of non-conf schedule, those teams are...

Least Challenging Non-Conf Schedules of the BCS Era
Team Year Opp Avg W Opponents (avg W)
Texas Tech 2005 0 I-AA Sam Houston State (0), I-AA Indiana State (0), Florida International (0)
Kansas 2005 1.7 I-AA Appalachian State (0), Florida Atlantic (0), Louisiana Tech (5.0)
Kansas State 1998 1.8 I-AA Indiana State (0), Northern Illinois (2.4), LA-Monroe (3.0)
Auburn 1999 2.2 I-AA Appalachian State (0), Idaho (2.8), UCF (3.8)
Auburn 2004 2.6 I-AA Citadel (0), LA-Monroe (2.4), Louisiana Tech (5.4)
LSU 2000 2.7 I-AA Western Carolina (0), UAB (3.8), Houston (4.4)
Minnesota 1999 2.7 I-AA Illinois State (0), LA-Monroe (4.0), Ohio (4.2)
Baylor 2001 2.8 I-AA Southern Illinois (0), Arkansas State (3.0), New Mexico (5.4)
LSU 1999 3.1 North Texas (2.8), Houston (3.2), San Jose State (3.4)
Mississippi State 2004 3.5 I-AA Maine (0), Tulane (5.0), UAB (5.6)
Alabama 2004 3.9 I-AA Western Carolina (0), Utah State (4.0), Southern Miss (7.8)

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Do you have the work up for the Independents? I'd like to see where Notre Dame is at.

Anonymous said...

So the facts confirm that Nebraska still sucks!

Ed Gunther said...

Hmmm... let me think about the Irish for a bit. I'm heistant because their numbers are going to be skewed no matter what. For instance, sure they play 8 or 9 BCS teams a year, and that's going to put their %BCS numbers almost at the top. But then think about all the other BCS teams - they all play at least 8 or 9 BCS opponents per year in conference that aren't counted here... If I can think of a way to include the Irish fairly, (and it might just be with a caveat like what I just mentioned), I'll work something up -

Anonymous said...

Another SEC homer. You have to be kidding me. Either you don't know football or you are very stupid.

Joe Sheehan said...

The study I've long wanted to do and never got to. Nice work. Bad on me for never getting to it.

Anonymous said...

Auburn only won that 1999 game versus Appalachian State with a game winning drive in the final minutes! It should really be worth more than a game against Idaho.