There's absolutely no way that ends up on a bulletin board somewhere
Rudimentary Analysis of BCS Win/Loss Records; 2002 – Present
In an effort to determine where the Michigan athletic department stands relative to our BCS conference peers, I have compiled the win/loss records for all the constituent programs for the last 8 years. I knew it wouldn’t be pretty, but I’m kind of a masochist and wanted to quantify how far we have fallen.
Details and Assumptions
- The analysis includes 66 teams: 65 BCS conference teams from the ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, PAC 10, and SEC, plus Notre Dame (here, included as part of the Big East for both football and basketball). The basketball-exclusive Big East members are omitted.
o The records include all games, included those against non-BCS (or non-FCS) opponents.
- The records cited are the complete records for the 2002 – 2009 seasons (the year being when the season began), including all post-season play. For basketball, conference tourney, NIT, and NCAA tournament records are weighted equally.
- The Overall record is an equally weighted average of the football and basketball records [(FB% + BB%) / 2).
- Baseball and hockey were omitted due to the inherent regional bias (and laziness).
- There is a laundry list of flaws in the methodology, but I only had so much free time at work, and the results are intended to be interesting, not irrefutable.
The most basic question is: where does our athletic department relative to other BCS conference teams. Based on the analysis described above, we are the 34th best BCS program in the country (out of 66) for the time period in question:
|
Football |
Basketball |
Overall |
|
|
Michigan % |
64.00% |
54.58% |
59.29% |
|
M Rank |
21 |
47 |
34 |
Michigan State is 33rd for the same period. Under Lloyd Carr from 2002 – 2007, Michigan was the 10th best football program (not ripping RR, just sayin’).
The top programs in the country for the time period are as follows:
|
Football |
Basketball |
Overall |
|
USC |
Kansas |
Texas |
|
Texas |
Duke |
Ohio State |
|
Ohio State |
Pittsburgh |
Florida |
|
Oklahoma |
UNC |
Oklahoma |
|
Georgia |
Kentucky |
Wisconsin |
|
LSU |
Wisconsin |
USC |
|
Florida |
Syracuse |
West VA |
|
VA Tech |
Texas |
Pittsburgh |
|
West VA |
Florida |
LSU |
|
Auburn |
Louisville |
Louisville |
The Utahs, Boise States, Memphises, et al of the world would probably appear above, but their inclusion would complicate the analysis.
What is the best conference overall? The Big East, apparently:
|
Football |
Basketball |
Overall |
FB Rank |
BB Rank |
Overall |
|
|
ACC |
56.65% |
62.43% |
59.54% |
5 |
2 |
4 |
|
Big East |
58.31% |
64.31% |
61.31% |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
Big 10 |
56.79% |
59.25% |
58.02% |
4 |
5 |
5 |
|
Big 12 |
57.69% |
61.64% |
59.66% |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
PAC 10 |
54.64% |
58.15% |
56.40% |
6 |
6 |
6 |
|
SEC |
58.94% |
60.97% |
59.96% |
1 |
4 |
2 |
With the exception of Big East basketball, the conference games are a wash by definition, so the above should reflect non-conference performance (with many caveats, of course, like the relative cupcakiness of non-con scheduling).
Unsurprisingly, the SEC is the top football conference. Surprisingly, the Big East is second. The PAC 10 comes in last in both, which is a result of middling surprisingness.
Finally, the teams that Michigan is most similar to in other BCS conferences:
|
Football |
Basketball |
Overall |
|
|
ACC |
Florida St |
Georgia Tech |
Wake Forest |
|
Big East |
Louisville |
Cincinnati |
Cincinnati |
|
Big 12 |
Missouri |
Nebraska |
Missouri |
|
PAC 10 |
Oregon St |
Oregon |
Oregon |
|
SEC |
Tennessee |
S. Carolina |
Kentucky |
That is all.
Naturally, I think we are a top 5 program in both sports, but it's been a while since we proved it.
Does it say Deke on the paper? Are there any other Dekes in your class?
but I prefer the methodology of the Director's Cup, and not just because Michigan still looks pretty good in those rankings.
Comparing the methodologies really is neither here nor there because the Directors Cup isn't measuring the same thing.
Galileo was also chastised.
In general terms, they are measuring the same thing: success of schools' athletics. It is in this broad sense of ranking schools that I was speaking. One includes a range of sports for their ranking, the other looks only at the two biggest revenue sports. The OP stated that he chose not to include baseball and hockey due to regional biases. The Director's Cup scoring methodology overcomes this problem.
I think I want to get drunk.
Those results are painful to read. Here's to turning that around starting today!
GO BLUE!
What the mind can conceive and believe, the mind can achieve and...Those Who Stay WILL Be Champions.
Thanks for the leg work on that. I imagine it was kind of mind numbing.
To be completely honest, it's not as bad as I would have thought. Basketball's overall record being above 0.500 is kind of surprising, but there have been some decent years mixed in. All in all, with major transitions / transformations going on in both programs, I can live with it. I think it's actually a pretty fair way of comparing things relative to what the general public perceives / actually cares about.


Was this meant to be depressing?
Galileo was also chastised.