Michigan Ranks Atop the B1G for Conference Standings
According to the Lincoln Journal Star, Michigan ranks at the top of the Big Ten for conference standings for 2012-13 (average conference finish). Minnesota's high ranking surprised me, as did MSU's low ranking (although they did not win a conference championship this year).
The author does not define "average B1G finish" but it seems to be a simple arithmetic mean. In any event, congratulations to our student athletes on their fine overall finish. Conference results below.
The tally: 1. Michigan 4.04; 2. Minnesota 4.43; 3. Ohio State 4.64; 4. Penn State 4.92; 5. Illinois 5.24; 6. Nebraska 5.57; 7. Wisconsin 6.10; 8. Indiana 6.22; 9. Northwestern 6.29; 10. Michigan State 6.83; 11. Purdue 7.35; 12. Iowa 7.58.
MSU's low ranking surprised you?
It didn't surprise me.
I didn't surprise me either. Their football team hit the shits last year, so now the only sport they really have is basketball.
I know State has a terrible swim team and their wrestling team, for how much talent comes from the Midwest and Michigan in particular, is terrible. MSU is the third best program in the state by a long shot. Surprisingly, Michigan and CMU are more like 1a and 1b with both teams consistently being top 15 programs and CMU defeating Michigan this year which is by no means abnormal or a bad loss.
Regardless, this shows the strength and effort the AD has put into non-revenue sports more than anything. The facility upgrades, coaching pay increases, and the name brand of Michigan and the education you receive, are all reasons for this. This really shows the strength of Michigan's Athletic department as a whole and should be a real source of pride for the school and AD both.
Agreed - MSU's low ranking didn't surprise me at all. MSU is not a strong all-sports school at all, at least for major conference standards. Compared to other major conference schools, they have below average academics (which becomes much more important for non-revenue sports), a poor national brand and an exceptionally strong program in their state.
In the state of Michigan, the best athletes will choose UM over MSU more often than not, and that goes triple (or likely better) for those outside of the state.
Michigan football brings in a lot more money than MSU football does. What that means, is non-revenue sports at Michigan will tend to be more funded than MSU's equivalent. Take the swim facilities, where Michigan has top-notch facilities, and MSU uses their IM center. Take wrestling, where Michigan has their wonderful Bahna Wrestling Center, and MSU works out of a very out-dated Jenison Field House. The same can be said for Volleyball and other sports. MSU finally put some money building a baseball/softball/soccer site that didn't look like a good high school equivalent, but none of it matches Michigan's simply because they don't have the revenue to keep up.
For some things (look CMU wrestling), academics aren't a sole determining factor. Program prestigue and coaching go a long ways as well as funding for the sport. Don't get me wrong, I think academics help Michigan, like you said, particularly for non-revenue sports, but I think it's probably only equal to the influence of facilities, program history, and the disparity between Michigan and MSU's in those fields.
This also explains why OSU (3rd) and PSU (4th) are high on the list while Indiana, Northwestern, and Purdue are also low on the list (note, NW is probably higher than they otherwise would be because of the academic influence you mentioned). Still trying to figure out Minn. though.
Certainly - my list was not meant to be exhaustive.
NW will often be an anomoly in sports in the Big Ten. They are the most difficult school to get accepted to and the most expensive (at least for in-staters). Since non-revenue sports rely on a lot of non-scholarship players, this can be tough for NW.
OSU and PSU also have the benefit of being in a large state with no Big Ten competition.
*Pretends he's a high school senior picking schools...
"So, my choices are UM or MSU. I don't have the grades for Michigan. I guess I'll go to Central then.
Football, Basketball, and Hockey B1G Champs - Has this been done before?
Big Ten hockey existed back in the 20s and 30s I think when it was just us, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Someone would have to go check the archives to see if any of those 3 have pulled it off
I wouldn't think Michigan has done it. Michigan football and basketball was good in the 70s and 80s, but the hockey program struggled most of those seasons. 90s, football was in good shape, hockey in elite shape and basketball was good but no titles other than the conference tourney title in 1998. Came close that 97-98 season - football was conference and national champs, basketball conference tourney champs and hockey finished 1 point behind MSU in the CCHA. Don't know if we've ever won all three in one academic calendar year.
In the 1966/67 academic year, Michigan State won the B1G football and hockey championships and shared the basketball championship with Indiana. Of course, there were only 3 B1G hockey teams at the time (Wisconsin, Ohio State and Penn State were not playing at the Division I level). The Big Ten still lists hockey championships in their record book from 1959 through 1981.
2012-13 in review
Here's an alternative ranking of the Big Ten, by current Directors' Cup position in the just-released latest standings:
- 2. Michigan
- 3. PSU
- 11. Minnesota
- 13. OSU
- 21. MSU
- 23. Nebraska
- 27. Northwestern
- 29. Wisconsin
- 31. Indiana
- 37. Purdue
- 40. Illinois
- 55. Iowa
First off, thanks for posting this. Those rankings are more in keeping with what I would have suspected, and it's interesting to check in on those rankings.
Based on the link you have, it seems that this may be an apples-to-oranges comparison. The Journal Star rankings seem to be based on the academic school year (2012-13), while the Director's Cup seems to be based on the calendar year (2013 only). If I'm reading the info you linked correctly, these latest standings would not take into account MSU's lackluster football season.
From the Director's Cup update you linked:
Please note, standings published midseason are unofficial. Official standings will be published upon the completion of the fall season.
No, the Director's Cup is also based on the academic school year. See the header on the second page of the PDF—2012-13 Learfield Sports Directors' Cup Division I Spring Standings—and also the columns to the far right: Fall, Winter, Spring.
EDIT: I think that's an error on their part in what you quoted. It probably should say "spring" instead of "fall."
Replied to wrong post
No weight to regular season performance. I think regular season performance (i.e. conference championships and standings) is important to compare teams within the conference. A better system would incorporate the two to evaluate the Big Ten teams.
Another difference with the Director's Cup is this ranking is an average of B1G standings, but there is no "penalty" for not competing in a sport. Michigan's average is based upon 25 sports; Nebraska's is based on 21 sports. IOW, if MSU had dropped swimming (as I have seen some speculation they might do), their score would have improved, which wouldn't happen in the Director's Cup.
I am not surprised by Sparty's low ranking, either. If talking about how great you are counted, though, they would be #1.