An Analysis of the Big10 New Divisions Relative Strength of Schedule
There has been significant discussion of how balanced the new Big10 divisions are. I have been using win/loss margin (WLM) to analyze turnovers and decided to use WLM to compare the relative strength of each division. (As a reminder, WLM is just wins minus losses. A WLM of 0 would be a 6-6 record, WLM of +4 would be an 8-4 record, and WLM of -4 would be a 4-8 record, etc.)
I selected data for the past decade (2000 – 2009) as a reasonable indication of the relative strength of each team. In an earlier thread, someone suggested using the past 5 years. Five years is a relatively small sample and the last five years have seen several teams (um, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Penn State come to mind) that have had significant swings when compared to past data. Only time will tell.
Here are the WLM for the past 10 years and 5 years.
|
10 Year WLM |
5 Year WLM |
|
|
Michigan |
3.80 |
1.60 |
|
Nebraska |
4.00 |
3.40 |
|
IOWA |
3.40 |
3.00 |
|
Northwestern |
0.10 |
1.20 |
|
Michigan State |
(0.30) |
0.00 |
|
Minnesota |
(0.10) |
(1.80) |
|
Total |
10.90 |
7.40 |
|
|
|
|
|
ohio state |
7.90 |
8.80 |
|
Wisconsin |
4.20 |
6.20 |
|
Penn State |
2.90 |
7.60 |
|
Purdue |
1.20 |
(0.40) |
|
Illinois |
(2.70) |
(3.60) |
|
Indiana |
(3.90) |
(2.80) |
|
Total |
9.60 |
15.80 |
|
Total |
20.50 |
23.20 |
As you can see, the divisions are well balanced based on 10 year WLM but are certainly NOT balanced based on the 5 year WLM.
Bonus Feature – Schedule Strength Based on WLM – Since I had the data, I also decided to look at schedule strength for this year plus 2011/2012. For schedule strength, I used 5 year WLM Databecause it should be a better indicator of short term performance.
The Table below provides 5 Year WLM for the Conference games, OOC games, and Total for All Games and the relative rank of the schedule strength. For all FCS games, I decided to use minus -8 WLM because “all” FCS teams are worst than any FBS team and the worst FBS team has a WLM of -7.9. There are just 15 out of 48 OOC games that opponents have a winning record.
|
2010 |
Conf |
Rank |
|
OOC |
Rank |
ALL Games |
Rank |
|
|
Michigan |
18.80 |
4 |
|
(5.00) |
3 |
13.80 |
2 |
|
|
Nebraska |
12.40 |
7 |
|
(22.00) |
12 |
(9.60) |
12 |
|
|
IOWA |
20.80 |
3 |
|
(11.60) |
9 |
9.20 |
4 |
|
|
Northwestern |
8.20 |
10 |
|
(9.80) |
7 |
(1.60) |
9 |
|
|
Michigan State |
13.80 |
6 |
|
(6.20) |
4 |
7.60 |
6 |
|
|
Minnesota |
22.80 |
2 |
|
0.20 |
1 |
23.00 |
1 |
|
|
Total |
96.80 |
|
|
(54.40) |
42.40 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
ohio state |
9.80 |
11 |
|
(7.40) |
5 |
2.40 |
7 |
|
|
Penn State |
6.40 |
12 |
|
(10.40) |
8 |
(4.00) |
10 |
|
|
Wisconsin |
9.60 |
8 |
|
(14.60) |
10 |
(5.00) |
11 |
|
|
Purdue |
9.60 |
8 |
|
(8.00) |
6 |
1.60 |
8 |
|
|
Illinois |
14.20 |
5 |
|
(2.60) |
2 |
11.60 |
3 |
|
|
Indiana |
24.40 |
1 |
|
(16.00) |
11 |
8.40 |
5 |
|
|
Total |
74.00 |
|
|
(59.00) |
15.00 |
|||
|
Total |
170.80 |
|
(113.40) |
57.40 |
Here is the data for Conference Only Games for 2011/2012
|
2011/2012 |
||
|
5 YEAR WLM |
2011/2012 |
Rank |
|
Michigan |
10.60 |
10 |
|
Nebraska |
26.60 |
1 |
|
IOWA |
8.80 |
11 |
|
Northwestern |
7.40 |
12 |
|
Michigan State |
19.60 |
4 |
|
Minnesota |
11.40 |
8 |
|
Total |
84.40 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
ohio state |
12.00 |
7 |
|
Penn State |
15.80 |
6 |
|
Wisconsin |
11.20 |
9 |
|
Purdue |
19.00 |
5 |
|
Illinois |
20.40 |
3 |
|
Indiana |
22.80 |
2 |
|
Total |
101.20 |
|
|
Total |
185.60 |
|
A couple of points are worth noting for all this data:
- Holy crap, did Nebraska ever get the toughest schedule! (Wonder if they know this?) The only teams they don’t play are 3 of the 4 worst teams – Yikes!
- In 2010, every team in the new “Bo” Division plays PSU, and Wisc. And, every team except Northwestern also plays osu. This is obviously not true for 2011/2012. That is the reason the overall schedule strength flips from 2010 to 2011/2012.
- The better teams in any conference will have a lower SOS (no matter how it is calculated) because they don’t play themselves.
- The not so good teams in any conference will have higher SOS for the same reason.
September 2nd, 2010 at 12:19 PM ^
There is no way to split into two conferences and always have a competitive balance each year. It’s just an impossible feat.
So what may look good now for any particular school, given their current success, may look rotten down the road.
that is the price for having a conference championship game and if we ever hope to eliminate what happened to Michigan in the 2006 season (going into the OSU game undefeated and ranked #2 in the country, losing that game, barely, and remaining ranked #2 in the pools until they got jumped twice in two separate weeks, after the Michigan season was over........that’s not supposed to happen..........and instead of seeing a rematch between OSU and Michigan for the national title we see Florida politic their way into the national championship game................then we have to live with this system that breaks the conference into two divisions.
Nothing is perfect; this will have to do and as a bonus the Big 10 gets Nebraska to come and join its ranks, which will do nothing but strengthen the conference.
September 2nd, 2010 at 1:13 PM ^
It has been shown over and over again in college football: the national powers are never down for very long. By splitting the four main powers 2–2, and the secondary powers (Wisconsin & Iowa) 1–1, they did as good a job as possible from a competitive standpoint. Over time, these divisions will probably be fairly balanced, the occasional outlying year notwithstanding.
For that not to be the case, either one of the major powers would need to be down for a very prolonged period, or some school none of us is thinking of would need to become a major power and stay that way. Neither one happens very often in college football.
September 2nd, 2010 at 5:06 PM ^
I absolutely agree. When I posted the WLM for 5 years it was just to show a comparison (and I used them for the 2010 and 2011/2012 SOS).
I have not checked if any of the other proposed division alignments would be relatively balanced or unbalanced.
Probably next week because I head south tomorrow for the game.
September 2nd, 2010 at 1:37 PM ^
that indy,purdue,minny,wildcats & illi are historically the 5 worst programs in the conference, then I'd say Wisky made out like a smirking little badger...why?
By deeding them Minny as their lock, permanent "rival" it guaraaaaaaannntteees....that the badger gets 4 of the said, historically weak, 5 teams EVERY year. Partner that with their general 4 out of conference pastries, and you have a program that need only steal a game from Psu or THE Osu university for a nice 9 game win season annually!
September 2nd, 2010 at 3:23 PM ^
September 3rd, 2010 at 2:20 PM ^
Rematches of The Game in the conference title game should be quite rare. Although perhaps not exceptionally so - 2006 would have had a guarenteed second game, for example.
As for SOC respective to the rest of our division: remember that while Michigan would be playing OSU 2.5x as often, the rest of the division has to play Michigan every season; assuming Michigan returns to promenence, this will make the SOC of the rest of the division greater relative to Michigan's (who obviously don't have to play themselves, ever.) Also worth noting is that Nebraska, the other projected top contender for the division, has to play PSU every year wheras Michigan would only play them 4/10.
September 2nd, 2010 at 3:35 PM ^
What's interesting to me is that, based on your first table, the "Woody" division has a better WLM, but the "Bo" division is more evenly matched. Woody has far and away the best team by WLM (Ohio State), but also the only two teams with a significantly negative WLM over 10 years.
Of course, a lot of this may be swayed by Nebraska and Michigan's historically rough last decade, OSU's historically excellent decade, and Wisconsin's ability to rack up 8-10 wins repeatedly while rarely beating anyone worth mentioning. It would be interesting to revisit these numbers year-to-year.
September 2nd, 2010 at 3:40 PM ^
Does Nebraska realize they got hosed in their schedule? Of course, what a surprise. Way to welcome the new kid on the block. If one does not believe in nefarious conspiracies to maintain the current balance of power, I suppose Neb should be flattered by the media exposure that will result from playing all the big boys for two years straight.
September 2nd, 2010 at 4:07 PM ^
Honestly, they did that to Nebraska on purpose. what better way to introduce them to the conference then to have them play all the power schools in their first season. Generates greater excitement in Lincoln. Might be tough, but if they do win a Big Ten Championship, no doubt they'll have earned it.
Comments