Big Ten Conference vs. other BCS conferences
I never thought I would actually write one of these diaries, but I thought I would get some perspective from some fellow Michigan fans, and better yet some fans that ultimately like to see the Big Ten as a whole succeed. After this bowl season I have finally realized how naive of a Big Ten fan I really am. I can't count how many times I have been in heated discussions with SEC, Big 12, etc. fans in arguing over which conference is better. After this bowl season, I decided to do a little research. I have taken all 6 major BCS conferences and have added up their bowl records and came up with the following (updated through OSU vs TEXAS)
College Football Bowl Records (Through January 6, 2009)
SEC W/L: 1995 2-4, 1996 5-0, 1997 5-1, 1998 4-4, 1999 4-4, 2000 4-5, 2001 5-3, 2002 3-4, 2003 5-2, 2004 3-3, 2005 3-3, 2006 6-3, 2007 7-2, 2008 5-2 TOTALS 61-40 60% Winning Percentage
BIG EAST: 1995 1-0, 1996 2-1, 1997 1-4, 1998 1-3, 1999 2-2, 2000 4-3, 2001 5-2, 2002 3-3, 2003 0-3, 2004 4-4, 2005 2-2, 2006 4-1, 2007 5-1, 2008 4-2 TOTALS 38-31 55%
BIG 12: 1995 6-1, 1996 2-3, 1997 2-3, 1998 3-4, 1999 3-3, 2000 4-3, 2001 3-5, 2002 5-3, 2003 2-6, 2004 4-3, 2005 5-3, 2006 3-5, 2007 5-3, 2008 4-2 TOTALS 51-47 52%
ACC: 1995 4-1, 1996 2-4, 1997 3-2, 1998 4-3, 1999 3-4, 2000 5-3, 2001 5-3, 2002 5-4, 2003 7-2, 2004 3-4, 2005 4-3, 2006 3-4, 2007 1-6, 2008 4-6 TOTALS 51-49 51%
PAC-10: 1995 1-4, 1996 1-4, 1997 5-1, 1998 1-4, 1999 1-4, 2000 3-2, 2001 2-3, 2002 2-4, 2003 4-2, 2004 3-2, 2005 3-2, 2006 2-3, 2007 4-2, 2008 5-0 TOTALS 37-37 50%
BIG TEN: 1995 2-4, 1996 4-3, 1997 2-5, 1998 5-0, 1999 5-2, 2000 2-3, 2001 2-4, 2002 5-2, 2003 3-5, 2004 3-3, 2005 3-4, 2006 2-5, 2007 3-5, 2008 1-6 TOTALS 42-51 45%
Are we the worst conference these days? I like to think that we are atleast fourth, but the gap in my opinion between the top 3(SEC, Big 12, Pac 10) and fourth best conference is substantial. I feel the playing style in the Big Ten is ancient these days. I am tired of hearing the reason we never do good in bowl games is because we have too long of a break before our bowl games or we are such a physical conference that we just beat up on each other, so by the time we get to our bowl games we are too exhausted. What are we doing wrong? Why are we not only the conference with the lowest winning percentage in bowl games since 1995, but also the only conference with a losing record since then, and Michigan has been a large contributor of that losing record in the past 5+ years. Who cares anymore about 20, 30, 40+ years ago when the Big Ten was a powerhouse. What do we need to do to succeed right now? I have been told to not worry about it because it is all cyclical anyways, but the only way it can be cyclical is if changes occur. I thought about what would have happened this year if we had a playoff system. What teams out of the 8 would OSU and Penn State been able to beat? The naive Big Ten fan part of me wanted to say they could have at least beat Utah and maybe Alabama, but the reality is we would have probably gotten beat by every single team.
I am a die hard Michigan fan and feel Michigan is actually moving in the right direction. They have taken a chance on hiring Rich Rodriguez, but it is a chance I feel will pay off in the future.
What does the Big Ten need to do? Why are we consistently losing big games out of conference? What will it take to get our conference and the University of Michigan back on top?
Thanks in advance for your input.
January 7th, 2009 at 11:46 AM ^
Gee...that was a lot of work! Thanks for doing it.
Big Ten? Meh. I don't really care about the Big Ten. I have no one to heatedly argue with, and wouldn't anyway. Just not worth it.
And I think you have to go back MORE than 50 years to describe the Big Ten as a 'power house'. I think Bump won a Rose Bowl in '64. Bo lost like 7 in a row, and really didn't win one until John Robinson left USC.
January 7th, 2009 at 11:49 AM ^
Part of the problem, in my opinion, is that the Big 10 regularly gets a second team in the BCS, which forces every other Big 10 bowl team to "play up", giving us some tough matchups. For example, if OSU had not made the BCS this year, they would have been in the Citrus, knocking every other Big 10 team down one rung, and probably getting us a few more wins.
The second item that is important to consider is that bowl games are not necessarily a fair indicator of conference strength. The Big 10 is play a road game in the Rose Bowl every year, along with road games in the Citrus against the SEC and in the Alamo against the Big 12. Even back in the Big 10 glory days, our Rose Bowl records were not too impressive. I think a better indicator is regular season non-conference record against other BCS schools. If you look at those records, I would guess that the numbers come out more equally.
January 7th, 2009 at 11:57 AM ^
You can't just look at won/loss records and think its an apt comparison, otherwise Utah would be in the national championship game this year and Hawaii would've been in last years and the PAC-10 would be recognized as the strongest conference this year despite only having two teams in the top 25.
January 7th, 2009 at 12:05 PM ^
Nice post - but looking at just the bowl records can be misleading. As LJ mentioned, it's all about matchups, and the Big 10 tends to play "up" a bit in bowls, while conferences like the Pac-10 have bowl tie-ins that usually have them playing down. What I mean is that the Big 10 usually has its #i team play the other conferences' #i-1 teams. By comparison, the Pac-10 and the Big-12 tend to have their #i teams playing another conference's #i+1 team, or they play a middling MWC or C-USA team. I'm not saying the Big 10 is great by any stretch, but bowl games alone paints an incomplete picture. Now, if you consider the recent pratfalls during OOC, then you have a better argument that the Big 10 is falling behind the other top conferences.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:12 PM ^
I whole-heartedly agree with you. When the bowl tie-ins were initially created, the Big 10 was a powerhouse conference and deserved to be "playing up". Now things have changed and the whole bowl/post-season has to be reevaluated. This reevaluation needs to get rid of automatic bowl tie-ins and create matchups that people want to see. Another thing that need to be looked at is location. The sunny weather of Miami and southern California are nice, but it would also be nice to see some bowl games in the north and east, to "even the playing field".
January 7th, 2009 at 12:10 PM ^
Good work pulling together the numbers in a way that is easy to compare. This does show why the Big Ten has gotten such lousy press for how awful we've been lately.
One of the things that people forget about when looking at coaches' bowl records is that these are supposed to be evenly matched games. So you would expect a large sample to be clustered around 50% winning, which is what we have.
It is surprising, though, that there seems to be a pretty strong bias for the SEC. When you start to look at the Big East and ACC, you have to consider how many teams are making it each year. When you do, the "Best 1 vs. Best Top-to-Bottom" debate ensues. More confusion.
Getting to the specifics of 2008, though, there is another key factor. I went to http://www.bcsguru.com/2008_bcs_standings.htm to see where teams are now. They only go up to a ranking of 42, so several teams are unranked, I assigned all those a ranking of 43* (which in the analysis below is UNfavorable for the Big Ten). Here's the matchups, ranks, and differences:
FSU/Wisc 26/43* -17
Missou/NW 21/23 -2
KU/Minn 34/43* -9
SCar/Iowa 43*/29 +14
Ga/MSU 15/18 -3
USC/PSU 5/8 -3
UT/OSU 3/10 -7
For the seven games, that is an average differential of almost -4 ranking spots. If you take out the South Carolina/Iowa game (the one game that the Big Ten won) the differential is almost -7 spots.
So, surprise, surprise! With 12 games worth of data, the BCS rankings accurately predicted the outcomes of all seven Big Ten matchups. So much for "throwing the rankings out the window."
Now, this doesn't address the fact that the Big Ten teams aren't ranked HIGHER. The two highest Big Ten teams being ranked 8th and 10th is, I guess, at the heart of the issue. But it does confirm what we all expected when the bowl matchups were announced: The Big Ten never had a chance this year.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:07 PM ^
Let's just show Michigan's record against the SEC. We own that conference. Don't let the talking blow hards spin your head around that the Big 10 is playing at a Division 2 level and the sky is falling. Here are the truths as I see them.
USC is playing at a differnt level than anyone else with their ridiculous recruiting. They have slipped up the last couple of years, but at the end of the year if you are honest with yourself and you had to lay money not very many times are you going to pick against them. So who does the Big Ten draw the last couple of years yes USC playing a virtual home game against the 2nd place Big Ten team twice and Penn St this year. they overwhelm such team which they do regularly to SEC and Big 12 schools during the year and the Big Ten gets piled on since everyone is watching. Bad Press for Big 10, but any conferences 2nd place team that would have gone in there would have likely been sloughtered.
Let's look at the bowls
OSU vs Texas- Game played to virtual tie no diff in talent
Iowa vs Scal- Iowa went in and punched SEC mediocrity in the face
PSU-USC-See above
Wisc-FSU-FSU blows them out but if you watched it FSU's punter was ridiculous it was a close game in middle of 3rd qtr and Wisc melted down with turnovers
NW vs Miss-Game played to OT virtual tie
Georgia vs MSU- Georgia has far superior talent MSU hung tough against disinterested underachieving team
Minn vs Kan-Minn was terrible and lucky and got overmatched.
The facts are the Big 10 is not the best conference, probably 3rd or 4th this year, but we play football competitively with all the other conferences it goes up and down each year. Mich and PSU and Wisc won their bowls last year as underdogs against the mighty SEC and Big Ten.
Myths
Big Ten are neanderthals who play 3 yards and cloud of dust- Idiotic 8 of the 11 work primarily from the spread and the 3 that don't are pretty succesful.
Big Ten has no speed-check an NFL draft board-stupid argument.
January 7th, 2009 at 1:54 PM ^
I appreciate all the responses. I have no idea if this truly paints the real picture of where each BCS conference lies, but I think it brings to the surface a more reality of where the Big Ten is than where most of us thought we were. I wrote this post mainly because I made the mistake of going to school down south. There are no more annoying fans than the SEC, and it is merely impossible to not get into heated arguments with most of them. I wanted to get some perspective from not only Big Ten fans, but the fans that have the most in common with myself which is the love for Michigan athletics. The one thing that sticks out most to me is that we are not just looking at 5 years here. We are looking at 14 years of bowl records. I thought it was pretty interesting, but could mean absolutely nothing. Thanks for the comments.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:15 PM ^
For what it is worth, Maybe some material that you can use when arguing with your SEC buddies back at school: Michigan is 12-4 against historical members of the SEC and 20-5-1 against current members of the conference. Additionally, they are also 7-3 against the SEC all time in bowl games and have dominated these matchups in recent years-the only problem is we suck right now.
January 7th, 2009 at 2:02 PM ^
that the top 6 conferences, based on win-loss performnace, are to be granted the 6 automatic berths. Any danger of the Big Ten losing their automatic berth if this keep up?
And if so, shouldn't Delaney REFUSE to have his teams matched up against much higher ranked teams in most cases?
January 7th, 2009 at 3:44 PM ^
1. The BCS has no reason to be upset with the Big Ten and the Big Ten is in no danger of losing its automatic berth. The reason is money. Big Ten teams draw large travel crowds and good TV ratings. If the pesky "rules" for auto berths become a problem, they will be changed.
2. As far as should Delaney refuse to send teams to games where they will probably lose, again, it comes down to money. Why should he do this when the typical reason Big Ten teams are forced to "play up" is because they have two BCS teams?
1998: Wisconsin (Rose), OSU (Sugar)
1999: Wisconsin (Rose), Michigan (Orange)
2000: Purdue (Rose)
2001: Illinois (Sugar)
2002: Iowa (Orange), OSU (Fiesta)
2003: Michigan (Rose), OSU (Fiesta)
2004: Michigan (Rose)
2005: OSU (Fiesta), Penn State (Orange)
2006: Michigan (Rose), OSU (BCS NC)
2007: Illinois (Rose), OSU (BCS NC)
2008: Penn State (Rose), OSU (Fiesta)
So, out of 11 years, the Big Ten has placed two teams in the BCS for 8 of those years. With big BCS payouts, the Big Ten is more than happy to take its lumps in bowl games to bank the cash.
3. As for the theory that the Big Ten's winning percentage in bowl games is lower because of years with two BCS teams:
Years with two BCS teams: 46%
Years with one BCS team: 41%
Not conclusive, but the Big Ten does BETTER in years it sends two BCS teams. Perhaps because the whole conference is better?
January 7th, 2009 at 8:20 PM ^
If all of the other conferences have winning records over the recent years, it indicates to me that they play a lot of non-BCS schools, while the Big Ten is stuck playing 6 BCS teams every year. This year, there were 6 Bowls between BCS and non-BCS schools, and the BCS schools were 5-1, the only loss being Alabama-Utah The Big Ten did not get one of those wins, because they did not get a matchup. Last year, the BCS was 6-2, the losses being BYU over UCLA in OT and Fresno State over Georgia Tech in Boise. The Big Ten did get the advantage of the Motor City Bowl, where Purdue beat CMU. The Big East and SEC both got two wins each against non-BCS teams. I don't really feel like going back further.
Moral of the story is that the Big Ten only occasionally gets a non-BCS bowl matchup, while other conferences can make up for losses against good BCS teams with relative cupcake bowl wins. It's hard to find year-by-year records, but that should be what accounts for the disparity. If you count bowls which match up BCS teams only, the Big Ten's record would likely be a little better relative to the other teams.
Not to mention, USC has probably deserved to be in the NC game two or three times recently, but instead dropped a game or two during the year and instead got to kick an overmatched Big Ten team's ass in the Rose Bowl, like this year, 2007 and 2004.
January 7th, 2009 at 10:45 PM ^
It all started with the BCS. This is also a fabrication of the devil urr ESPN. I really don't shiv a git about no stinking conference match up crap. The folks that latch onto that stuff are fans of lower teir teams of that conference. Why the hell am I arguing with some jack ass about a conference, is there a B10 conference all star game vs the SEC conference all stars that I missed. Kill all the conference vs conference talk. Does it really make my team better based on what my conference did? I would say it hurt Utah.
January 7th, 2009 at 11:47 PM ^
The ACC and Big East are also weak but we don't know it because they're too chicken to play elite teams (and the one time Va Tech played LSU I think they were crushed) and they play against each other in the illegitimate Orange Bowl. As far as talent goes, the Big East is falling into irrelevance. The ACC has some potential but they have a long way to go. Right now, I would place the Big East behind the B10 and the ACC and the B10 together in one group.
Comments