Final Statistical Analysis...

[buckeyefan78]

Ok, this isn't meant to say "Conference A is better than Conference B". It's simply some interesting numbers I've gathered in some key areas where I feel you can get an idea of how strong a conference happens to be.

What I did here was go thru each BCS conference and determined their record/various percentages against the other BCS conferences, Notre Dame, the MWC and Boise State ( since the MWC was so strong this year and Boise finished in the top 25 - only non-BCS/MWC team to do so). Basically the MWC is a BCS conference...of sorts...in this analysis. Where you see ties in percentages...I worked 'em out on the calculator so they're legit even though I only rounded two spots. Trust me.

OVERALL RECORD VS. THE BCS, MWC, ND AND BOISE

1. MWC...11-6
2. Big East...11-9
3. ACC...17-14
4. Big Twelve...14-13
5. SEC...12-12
6. Pac Ten...12-15
7. Big Ten...7-14

ROAD RECORD VS. THE BCS, MWC, ND AND BOISE

1. MWC...5-2
2. ACC...6-3
3. Big Twelve...3-5
4. Big Ten...2-4
5. SEC...3-7
6. Big East...2-6
7. Pac Ten...2-8

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL NON-CONF GAMES PLAYED AGAINST FCS OPPONENTS (lower the better - obviously)

1. Pac Ten...6%
2. MWC...15%
3. Big East...15%
4. SEC...16%
5. Big Ten...18%
6. Big Twelve...18%
7. ACC...24%

PERCENTAGE OF OVERALL NON-CONF GAMES PLAYED AGAINST THE BCS, MWC, ND AND BOISE (higher the better - obviously)

1. Pac Ten...75% (absolutely amazing)
2. ACC...54%
3. Big Twelve...49%
4. SEC...43%
5. Big East...43%
6. MWC...42%
7. Big Ten...41%

PERCENTAGE OF NON-CONF GAMES PLAYED ON THE ROAD AGAINST THE BCS, MWC, ND AND BOISE

1. Pac Ten...28%
2. SEC...18%
3. Big East...17%
4. ACC...16%
5. MWC...15%
6. Big Twelve...15%
7. Big Ten...12%

************************************************

Interesting stuff here. Few thoughts...

The ACC did a solid job of winning their big games, winning on the road in said games and having a solid percentage of their overall games against big boys. But then the weird stat - 24% of their non-conf games were against FCS squads. Almost as if they either played a toughie or a cupcake...not much middle ground.

While the Pac Ten struggled in their big games (12-15) they did a hell of a job in playing the least amount of FCS and played the highest percentage of big boys.

The Big Twelve and SEC, for all their hype, were pretty middle of the pack here.

And finally...my God...the Big Ten is HORRIBLE.

[mjussawalla]

Re: Final Statistical Analysis...

I think this further confirms that the Big 10 ain't what it used to be.

Also, I was surprised at how many people (including myself) don't give the Pac 10 enough credit.

[studbucket]

Re: Final Statistical Analysis...

Nice post and analysis!

[buckeyefan78]

Re: Final Statistical Analysis...

I think this further confirms that the Big 10 ain't what it used to be.

Also, I was surprised at how many people (including myself) don't give the Pac 10 enough credit.

Yeah, the Big Ten got problems.

The Pac Ten continues to play the least amount of patsies, travels the most and isn't afraid of the other big boys. They went 2-6 vs. the MWC this year...which stung. But we have to remember that the MWC went the following...

Pac Ten: 6-2
SEC: 2-0
Big Ten: 1-0
Big Twelve:1-3

0-1 vs. ND and 1-0 vs. Boise

No games against the ACC or Big East

[dagger55]

Re: Final Statistical Analysis...

Yeah, the Big Ten got problems.

The Pac Ten continues to play the least amount of patsies, travels the most and isn't afraid of the other big boys. They went 2-6 vs. the MWC this year...which stung. But we have to remember that the MWC went the following...

Pac Ten: 6-2
SEC: 2-0
Big Ten: 1-0
Big Twelve:1-3

0-1 vs. ND and 1-0 vs. Boise

No games against the ACC or Big East

You are right in saying the Pac 10 plays less patsys, but they also play 9 conference games every year, as opposed to 8 everywhere else. That means they have less schedule to fill

[buckeyefan78]

Re: Final Statistical Analysis...

You are right in saying the Pac 10 plays less patsys, but they also play 9 conference games every year, as opposed to 8 everywhere else. That means they have less schedule to fill

Yeah, but that shows me they got balls.

When the NCAA added the 12th game they forced their teams to play a conference foe (a BCS school). MOST of the other BCS conferences (cough Big Ten) went out and got Pop Warner squads.

EDIT: Hell, how do you spell the plural of patsy?

PATSIES

OR

PATSYS

LOL

[mjussawalla]

Re: Final Statistical Analysis...

I would like to see some future MWC and Big East match-ups.

I could very well see in the next round of BCS/bowl negotiations the MWC making a claim to be a BCS conference. If that happens, then I could see Hawaii and Boisie moving to the MWC.

[buckeyefan78]

Re: Final Statistical Analysis...

I would like to see some future MWC and Big East match-ups.

I could very well see in the next round of BCS/bowl negotiations the MWC making a claim to be a BCS conference. If that happens, then I could see Hawaii and Boisie moving to the MWC.

Fresno State would likely be in the mix to join the MWC if the MWC was looking to join the BCS.

In their last 30 games against BCS foes Fresno is nearly .500 at 14-16.

[superjames1992]

Re: Final Statistical Analysis...

I would like to see some future MWC and Big East match-ups.

I could very well see in the next round of BCS/bowl negotiations the MWC making a claim to be a BCS conference. If that happens, then I could see Hawaii and Boisie moving to the MWC.

That's probably not going to happen very often. The Big East and the Mountain West are really too far away to play too many games most likely. I mean, the Big East has had one regular season matchup with the Pac-10 in the last two years (Cincy beat Oregon State 34-3 in 2007 and they play them at Corvallis in 2009), but Big East teams generally don't travel that far west, neither do the SEC or ACC. But you do see a lot of MWC and Pac-10 matchups.

Let's not get on the MWC bandwagon just yet, folks. They were good this year and arguably the third or fourth best conference out there, but the bottom of the league is horrible and they've had one good year. Besides, there is not much in the way of revenue and such that can be gained in that conference and there's no real tradition, which is what the BCS is unfortunately all about.

That said, there is a provision which allows for seven auto-bid conferences, so the Mountain West could be added without kicking anyone out as every conference has met the so-called "Big East Rule."

Of course, we could just get rid of the BCS and get a playoff to simplify things!

Nah, that'd be too easy...

[mjussawalla]

Re: Final Statistical Analysis...

Fresno State would likely be in the mix to join the MWC if the MWC was looking to join the BCS.

In their last 30 games against BCS foes Fresno is nearly .500 at 14-16.

Yes, Fresno would make a good case as well.

Imagine a conference with:

Utah
Boise
Hawaii
TCU
BYU
Fresno

I think a MWC with these teams (among others) could consistently rank about the Big East and possibly the Big Ten.

[Cebby]

Re: Final Statistical Analysis...

I could very well see in the next round of BCS/bowl negotiations the MWC making a claim to be a BCS conference.

They won't. Who's going to agree with it?

The BCS conferences? No, they don't want an at large spot taken.

The BCS itself? You really think they're excited for the Mountain West ratings?

[mjussawalla]

Re: Final Statistical Analysis...

They won't. Who's going to agree with it?

The BCS conferences? No, they don't want an at large spot taken.

The BCS itself? You really think they're excited for the Mountain West ratings?

The Pac-10 would probably want that - thus increasing their chances of better bowls and higher rankings.

There was talk earlier of adding another BCS bowl - possibly the Cotton, Capital One or Outback thus having more at-large spots.

[superjames1992]

Re: Final Statistical Analysis...

The Pac-10 would probably want that - thus increasing their chances of better bowls and higher rankings.

There was talk earlier of adding another BCS bowl - possibly the Cotton, Capital One or Outback thus having more at-large spots.

Good God, we don't need anymore BCS bowls. There's too many already...

[Cardot]

Re: Final Statistical Analysis...

Yeah, I think the out of conference scheduling is the 2nd biggest problem with college football (the BCS being #1 of course).

Because there are so few quality OOC games, it really is tough to evaluate the conferences. I still don't know how the Big 12 had such high marks when teams like Texas Tech faced 2 FCS teams, SMU and Nevada as their OOC games.

I think it would be kind of cool if football did something like college hoops does with the Big 10 - ACC challenge. If each conference faced off against 2 other conferences top to bottom each year (on a rotating basis), that still leaves 2 games for OOC rivals or warmup cupcakes. I know it won't happen, so no need to debate the logistics, but it would certainly help rank the conferences.

[buckeyefan78]

Re: Final Statistical Analysis...

The Pac-10 would probably want that - thus increasing their chances of better bowls and higher rankings.

There was talk earlier of adding another BCS bowl - possibly the Cotton, Capital One or Outback thus having more at-large spots.

I'm pretty sure the Cotton is in the mix for that BCS bowl with the new stadium coming this year.

If we have to have the BCS I would hope they just go back to rotating the MNC game instead of this dual-hosting site thing.