Is Michigan State lucky or clutch? Bama in the Playoff is the ultimate test

Michigan State is a 9.5-point underdog against Alabama on New Year’s Eve. That might seem excessive. The Spartans have the same record, they won a conference that was not far in quality from the SEC, and after beating four ranked opponents, their strength of schedule is better than the Tide’s.

So why are the Spartans significant underdogs? The advanced stats agree with Vegas, but simply put, MSU played a bevy of close games. Compare the four Playoff entrants by their records in one-score games:

Over half of Michigan State’s games were decided by one score. (Oklahoma is a 3.5-point favorite over a Clemson team with a better record, and OU has half of Clemson’s one-score wins.)

This could mean one of two things.

Football games are often decided by just one or two plays -- a missed field goal, a bouncing fumble, the subjective spot of an official on fourth-and-1. One missed assignment by a cornerback, or one slightly askew pass that bounces off a receiver’s hands and into those of a defensive back five yards away and the game could be over. In a blowout, however, one lucky bounce isn’t going to change things.

Championship teams beat their good opponents convincingly and destroy the cupcakes. In the DVOA era (1989-2014), 23 of 26 Super Bowl champions have had more blowouts against sub-.500 teams than close wins against above-.500 teams.

Whether that’s the result of belief, a coaching staff that makes excellent end-game decisions, meticulous preparation for unlikely scenarios, or some other factor, Michigan State’s success in close games could be replicable. If the Spartans can stay close, might they have an advantage in the fourth quarter based on the experience of nipping Michigan, Ohio State and Iowa in the final minute?

Let’s compare Michigan State to similar teams that would have made a four-team Playoff since 1998. Using SRS, the rating utilized at College Football Reference (a handy site for answering historical questions because it goes back to college football’s first seasons), we can chart Michigan State with other teams that didn’t get love from the computers.

Michigan State has an SRS rating of 17.16. Here are the teams that also had SRS ratings below 18 and finished in the top four of the AP poll at the end of the regular season:

Of the 72 teams that have entered bowls in the top four since 1998, the Spartans are among 19 that had SRS ratings below 18.

Leaving aside the 2001 Fiesta Bowl that pitted two such teams against one another, the teams in Michigan State’s cohort are 3-13 in the postseason, with 11 of the losses by double digits.

Here are the three teams Michigan State’s group beat, compared to Alabama:

So what can we conclude?

That said, if we just look at the other Mark Dantonio team on the chart (and one that would have been on the chart if we dropped out its bowl result), there’s cause for optimism.

‘13 Michigan State had a worse SRS that this year’s team, it played an opponent in the Rose Bowl that SRS said was four points better, and yet the Spartans won by four. Connor Cook, Shilique Calhoun, Jack Conklin, Jack Allen, Macgarrett Kings, Josiah Price and Trevon Pendleton have all been here before.

There is one more example: The 2002 Ohio State Buckeyes, a team whose defense was coordinated by Dantonio. That team finished with an SRS rating of 18.13, but its rating would have been below 18 before playing Miami in the BCS Championship. Like Michigan State, that team won six close games and got the “more lucky than good” tag. Like Michigan State, the Bucks were heavy underdogs against a dynasty opponent. And that turned out OK for the underdogs.

Do Dantonio teams have an ability to punch above what the computers say is their weight? Do they win more than their share of close games for a repeatable reason? Dantonio’s 7-1 record in his last eight games against AP top-10 teams and his 9-4 record straight up in his last 13 games as an underdog indicate the answers may be yes. He might have (noted Michigan fan) Derek Jeter’s gene for clutchiness.

There’s one additional reason for optimism. It is conceivable Michigan State played a number of close games because of injuries to some combination of Cook, several offensive linemen and much of the secondary. If Michigan State is demonstrably healthier, it might not really belong in the sub-18 cohort.

Big Ten teams often land in the top four despite underwhelming SRS ratings. The conference’s teams make up eight of the 19 squads (42 percent) to make the top four with sub-18 SRS ratings, but only five of the remaining 53 (9 percent) to make the top four with SRS ratings above 18.

Do Big Ten teams play a defensive style that depresses their SRS numbers, which favor offense (though it’s worth noting that S&P+ and other stats favor Bama over MSU just as much)? Is this evidence of poll bias, either by failing to take strength of schedule into account or by favoring Big Ten teams?