In January of 2007, at my original Tennessee blog, I outlined the teams from 2006 that fell under the CGVR (Close Game Variance Ratio) parameters. CGVR is just the tool Phil Steele came up with years ago, but with a fancy name and specifically revisited every year. If you're new to CGVR, here's the deal: Mr. Steele found some strong statistical correlations between teams that either won or lost many close games and their record the next season. A close game is defined as any game that ends within one possession on the scoreboard (thus, 8 points). So if a team wins 3 close games and loses 1 close game, that team's CGVR is +2. Steele found that the correlations become strong at +2 and above and -2 and below. Teams with +2 or more cannot be expected to improve their record the next season, whereas teams with -2 or worse cannot be expected to regress the next season. Make sense? Good. Here are the 2006 CGVRs, the expectation, the 2007 record, and if the CGVR got it right.
As you can see, Phil Steele's theory continued to be accurate. Twenty of the 28 teams that qualified did not improve their records, which is 71.4%. Also, every single team with a CGVR of +4 or more had worse records the next year, with over 2 less wins than in 2006.
Onto the other side of the coin.
Again, the theory holds water. Twenty-two of 27 qualified teams fit the mold. Overall, 42 of 55 teams that qualified somewhere within the parameters set my Phil Steele did what Steele predicted. That's 76.4% of the teams from last year - but people will still blow these facts off.
Coming later this week is the list of 2007 CGVR qualifiers.