Only one ACC team advanced to the Sweet 16

Only one ACC team advanced to the Sweet 16

Submitted by Chitown Kev on March 20th, 2017 at 1:19 AM

Duke, Notre Dame, Louisville, Virginia, Florida State, Miami, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest...all gone...

Only UNC is left

3 teams from each of the Big 10, Pac 12, Big 12 and SEC.

And even 2 teams from the Big East!?

I guess the Atlantic Coast Conference isn't all that this year...for a change.

Evaluating every FBS program's stance on satellite camps

Evaluating every FBS program's stance on satellite camps

Submitted by Mr. Elbel on April 20th, 2016 at 1:21 PM

(Note: I'm not sure how to insert links for all the quotes, but if someone can tell me or send me somewhere that will tell me, I'll go back and give credit for every quote and such.)

If you’ve been alive for the past few weeks you’ve heard more about satellite camps than you care to know, which is why I’ve written an extensive diary about them. You’re welcome.

Tom VH’s piece on how coach’s voting can bring down the ban on satellite camps sparked my curiosity as to which schools are actually in favor of the ban, which are opposed to the ban, and which don’t give a crap because they’re smarter than you (I’m lookin’ at you, David Shaw).

From Tom’s article: “The April 8 vote that bans coaches from holding high school camps off campus did not pass by 85 percent majority, which leaves the door open for coaches and athletic directors to try to rescind the vote. Behind closed doors, that's exactly what seems to be happening right now.

“One of the options Harbaugh and Manuel have is trying to get a 66.7 percent of the majority of 128 FBS programs to request that the ruling be rescinded within a 60-day override period. Since the original vote only received 66.6 percent approval, well below the required 85 percent, the programs that disagree with the ruling can still get the ban relinquished.

“The original vote to ban the camps was done by conference representatives, whereas a reversal would require individual votes from programs. Getting roughly 85 programs to request the repeal might be difficult, but there are a growing number of coaches speaking out against the ban.”

He’s rounding down to get to that 85 number, so let’s assume 86 just to be safe. There are two different ways to look at this: From Michigan’s perspective, we need 86 programs including ours to vote to undo the ban. But from the other side, the SEC and their minions need over 43 votes in favor of the ban to uphold it. They already got 66.6 percent approval from the original vote; however, the votes there don’t seem to represent every program very effectively (even though they should in theory).

Thus, determining which programs have spoken out against the ban and which have spoken out against the camps can give us a clearer picture of if such a vote is even plausible. Looking at each of the 128 FBS programs, this is what I came up with:







I came up with these numbers by simply googling each program by name, the coach’s name, or the AD’s name with satellite camps. If there isn’t anything relevant on the first or second page, I put n/a. It proved fairly true that if a coach or AD spoke up about the camps or the ban in any way that someone wrote about it from somewhere and it’d end up on the first two search pages. We’ve covered it to death at mgoblog, but so has just about everyone else it seems.

The programs that are on the fence are interesting. Some of them I put there simply because they had camps scheduled but I couldn’t actually find that they gave any kind of a response to the ban itself. Some are there because they’ve openly come out as neutral or have suggested some other changes to the rule. Lots of “I can see both sides to it” quotes coming out of these programs. Some were much more interesting, in the case of Texas State, whose coach came out vehemently against the ban, but whose AD represented the Sun Belt by voting for the ban, an action for which he received some backlash. In the breakdown below, I give more explanation to these cases.

One variable that jacks up this data is proven in the Texas State case, where the AD and the coach might disagree. In this case, the AD likely overrules the coach, however there were few cases where both the AD and coach had spoken publicly about the subject (as Harbaugh and Manuel have), and only that one where they openly disagreed. However, if it comes down to a vote, these instances might have a big effect on how schools vote, so keep that in mind.

The current position of every FBS football program, by conference (those who take any position are bolded):


AAC: 3 against, 9 n/a

Cincinnati: against ban

Connecticut: n/a

East Carolina: n/a

Houston: n/a

Memphis: n/a

Navy: n/a

SMU: n/a

Temple: n/a

Tulane: against ban

Tulsa: n/a

UCF: n/a

USF: against ban


ACC: 1 against, 1 neutral, 5 in favor, 7 n/a

Boston College: n/a

Clemson: in favor of ban

Duke: in favor of ban

Florida State: in favor of ban

Georgia Tech: in favor of ban

Louisville: n/a

Miami (YTM): n/a

North Carolina: n/a

North Carolina State: made statement praising Harbaugh: “You want to have as many opportunities as possible to not just recruit but have your brand out there. What Michigan did was smart. They took advantage of an opportunity. They had the budget to do it. Being a northern school, which I've been before, being able to get down into the South where there's a lot of talent, for them, was intelligent.” – Dave Doeren, head coach

Pittsburgh: in favor of ban

Syracuse: n/a

Virginia: n/a

Virginia Tech: n/a

Wake Forest: against ban


Big 10: 7 against, 2 neutral, 1 in favor, 4 n/a

Illinois: n/a

Indiana: n/a

Iowa: in favor of ban

Maryland: against ban

Michigan: against ban (obviously)

Michigan State: against ban

Minnesota: n/a

Nebraska: against ban

Northwestern: against ban

Ohio State: against ban

Penn State: ok with ban: “If it's legal, we're going to do it, as long as everybody's playing by the same rules is what I care about... There were some real positives to it, but there were some things people had concerns about. You can make arguments both ways. Obviously this is something that we were doing, and enjoyed doing, but I also like the fact we are going to back on our campus, spend more time with our current players, and then the same thing with our families." – James Franklin, head coach

Purdue: hasn’t said, but had camps scheduled

Rutgers: against ban

Wisconsin: n/a


Big 12: 4 against, 2 neutral, 4 n/a

Baylor: against ban

Iowa State: against ban

Kansas: n/a

Kansas State: wants to revise rule: “Our satellite camps, for the most part, were in the state of Kansas, trying to get out to western Kansas, because western Kansas youngsters sometimes just can't get here. We did them in Kansas City, we did them in Wichita. We were in-state. I would prefer the rule still allowed you to do that.” – Bill Snyder, head coach

Oklahoma: against ban

Oklahoma State: against ban

Texas: n/a

Texas Christian: n/a

Texas Tech: n/a

West Virginia: ok with ban: “Camps were once formed for developmental purposes and they’ve turned totally into recruiting tools... I think it’s forcing your institution and camp to move all around the country. In reality, how many of those kids are really coming to your school?” – Shane Lyons, AD


Conference USA: 4 against, 2 neutral, 8 n/a

Charlotte: n/a

Florida Atlantic: had camps scheduled

Florida Int’l: n/a

Louisiana Tech: against ban

Marshall: n/a

MTSU: n/a

North Texas: n/a

Old Dominion: against ban

Rice: n/a

Southern Miss: n/a

UAB: against ban

UTEP: had camps scheduled, coach made neutral statement: "It won't affect us too much... We'll have to adjust but it won't affect us as much as it will other people. Our main focus is on El Paso, the big camp we have here with 150 kids." – Sean Kugler, head coach

UTSA: n/a

Western Kentucky: against ban


Independents: 1 against, 1 neutral, 1 n/a

Army: n/a

Notre Dame: against ban

BYU: ok with ban: "I can see both sides of it. I understand where everyone is making statements, has an opinion. I get that. But my job as head coach is whatever the NCAA says to do, we do it. It doesn't matter what my personal opinion is. I can see both arguments. But right now, the camps are off-limits, so we just plan accordingly." – Kalani Sitake, head coach


MAC: 4 against, 2 neutral, 6 n/a

Akron: n/a

Ball State: had camps scheduled

Bowling Green: against ban

Buffalo: n/a

Central Michigan: against ban

Eastern Michigan: against ban

Kent State: n/a

Miami (NTM): n/a

Northern Illinois: n/a

Ohio: n/a

Toledo: ok with ban: “I see both sides of it. I think it’s a positive that everything is going to be done on your own campus, but I certainly know the benefits of what we’ve had in the past, where we’ve been able to go out and see a bunch of young men at a central location.” – Jason Candle, head coach

Western Michigan: against ban


MWC: 4 against, 1 neutral, 7 n/a

Air Force: n/a

Boise State: against ban

Colorado State: against ban

Fresno State: n/a

Hawai’i: against ban

Nevada: n/a

New Mexico: n/a

San Diego State: n/a

San Jose State: against ban

UNLV: n/a

Utah State: n/a

Wyoming: had camps scheduled


PAC 12: 6 against, 2 in favor, 1 neutral, 1 “it’s complicated,” 2 n/a

Arizona: against ban

Arizona State: n/a

Cal: in favor of ban

Colorado: against ban

Oregon: against ban

Oregon State: had camps scheduled

Stanford: no opinion: “I’m great with whatever college football says, because it doesn’t affect us. It doesn’t make sense for us to go hold a camp some place where there might be one person in the entire state that’s eligible to get into Stanford.” – David Shaw, head coach

UCLA: in favor of ban

USC: n/a

Utah: against ban

Washington: against ban

Washington State: against ban


SEC: 11 in favor, 2 neutral, 1 n/a

Alabama: in favor of ban

Arkansas: on fence: "We were gonna jump in; We were gonna jump in with both feet." – Bret Bielema, head coach

Auburn: in favor of ban

Florida: in favor of ban

Georgia: in favor of ban

Kentucky: in favor of ban

LSU: in favor of ban

Mississippi State: in favor of ban

Missouri: in favor of ban

Ole Miss: in favor of ban

South Carolina: ok with ban/no opinion: “"You ever been to Michigan in March? I'd go to Florida if I were them," Muschamp said, in reference to the Wolverines' spring break excursion to IMG Academy in Bradenton. In the next breath, Muschamp was sure to point out that Jim Harbaugh and the Wolverines did nothing illegal per the NCAA rulebook and said he couldn't care less what other teams are doing this spring.” – Will Muschamp, head coach (via Brad Crawford, 247)

Tennessee: in favor of ban

Texas A&M: in favor of ban

Vanderbilt: n/a


Sun Belt: 5 against, 1 in favor, 2 neutral, 1 “it’s complicated,” 2 n/a

Appalachian State: wants to revise rule: “I can see both sides of the argument for satellite camps, and I do agree with the fact more student-athletes get seen when you’re able to have the satellite camps. You’re doing camps in a place where there’s an abundance of players, and you may have 10 to 20 colleges of all levels there to see these kids... I can see a happy medium coming down. It may not happen this year — maybe next year — where you can work your state and go anywhere in your state.”- Scott Satterfield, head coach

Arkansas State: had camps scheduled

Arkansas Little Rock: against ban

Georgia Southern: against ban

Georgia State: against ban

Louisiana Lafayette: in favor of ban

Louisiana Monroe: against ban

South Alabama: n/a

Texas State: had camps scheduled, coach against ban, AD in favor of ban: "I think it was a snap decision. Not very good for kids that need coaches like myself in the Sun Belt and the MAC to be able to go to Texas and Ohio State camps and see those kids." – Everett Withers, head coach

"The Sun Belt voted on a controversial issue to eliminate these satellite camps. Six of ten FBS conferences voted to eliminate these camps. The pros and cons of these camps can be debated, and I am sure there will continue to be discussion on this matter, but for now the majority has spoken and it's time to move on and the Sun Belt football programs will continue to get better with or without these camps." – Karl Benson, Sun Belt Commissioner (in response to Larry Teis, Texas State’s AD, voting for the ban on behalf of the conference)

UT Arlington: n/a

Troy: against ban


To reiterate the summary, here it is again:








If every program had to vote on this matter one way or the other, we could simplify it to this:

AGAINST BAN: 49 (goal: 86)

IN FAVOR OF BAN: 26 (goal: 43)


Needing 37 of those 53 undecided votes is quite a bit to ask. But let’s look at those undecided programs a bit more closely to see if we can narrow that down even more:


Undecided programs by conference:

AAC: 9

ACC: 7

Big 10: 4

Big 12: 4

Conference USA: 8

Independents: 1

MAC: 6

MWC: 7

PAC 12: 2

SEC: 1

Sun Belt: 3

Let’s also look at how many are against the ban...:

AAC: 3

ACC: 2

Big 10: 8

Big 12: 5

Conference USA: 6

Independents: 1

MAC: 5

MWC: 5

PAC 12: 7

SEC: 0

Sun Belt: 7

...and in favor of the ban:

AAC: 0

ACC: 5

Big 10: 2

Big 12: 1

Conference USA: 0

Independents: 1

MAC: 1

MWC: 0

PAC 12: 2

SEC: 13

Sun Belt: 1


Beyond the ACC and the SEC, no other conference has more than two programs that have spoken out against the satellite camps or agreed with the ruling. Plus those same conferences are the only ones to have only two or less programs against the ban. This pattern is key to gaining the necessary votes to repeal the ban on satellite camps.

Another pattern to notice is that power 5 conferences have more programs that have spoken up one way or the other about the ban. Only 18 of the 53 undecided programs are from power 5 conferences, leaving 35 from group of 5 conferences. This is also key, as the ban seems to really hurt these smaller schools, particularly if they are in smaller markets (anyone feel bad for Hawai’i here?). It is likely that the majority of those 35 schools be against the ban. Which, with 37 more votes needed, that bodes well for the good guys.

Geography doesn’t seem to matter in the group of 5 programs, as the AAC, CUSA, and Sun Belt all either have schools in the south or are totally in the south, yet from just those 3 conferences only 1 school (Louisiana Lafayette from the Sun Belt) has come out in support of the ban while 16 have come out against it. The MWC as well has 5 against it with 0 in favor, which is even better than the MAC can say with Toledo’s Jason Candle being ok with the ban. Programs in the south and west might even be more affected by the new rule as even camping at schools within their own state would likely help them in recruiting, whereas a program in the midwest or elsewhere might not have the same opportunities to see top level recruits within their own state or even nearby.

This explains why many schools in the Sun Belt, MWC, CUSA, even the PAC 12 are against the ban. It also explains why there is so much outrage that some of those conferences inexplicably “voted” for the ban. In the case of the Sun Belt and the PAC 12, conferences that voted for the ban, over half the conference oppose the ban!

Moving forward, as more of these undecided programs come out of the woodwork either opposed or in favor of the NCAA’s ban on satellite camps, it is clear that we can expect most of them to side with Harbaugh and high-schoolers everywhere on this one. Whether or not it will be enough to rescind the vote by June 7th remains to be seen, but there is hope.

Conference Rankings - Basketball

Conference Rankings - Basketball

Submitted by DCAlum on December 17th, 2012 at 3:16 PM

I decided to put this together really quickly because I was bored at work. I used the most recent of two human polls (AP and Coaches) and two computer rankings (KenPom and Sagarin). Both types have their flaws (everyone probably knows about KenPom's love for Wisconsin at this point), so hopefully some sort of average makes sense.


  AP Coaches KenPom Sagarin Total
B10 98 96 97 86 377
BE 74 69 80 70 293
SEC 32 34 43 30 139
ACC 29 31 27 25 112
B12 19 20 20 22 81
P12 22 21 15 19 77
MWC 23 19 7 24 73
MVC 9 13 10 23 55
WCC 12 12 15 14 53
A10 7 1 11 12 31


It's a really simple ranking algorithm. The conference gets 25 points for a team in 1st place in whichever poll/model, 24 for 2nd, etc. So theoretically, a single team could earn its conference a total of 100 points. I only look at the top 25 teams, so this isn't incredibly accurate, but it's hopefully a nice little back-of-the-envelope calculation.



The Big 10 is pretty strong right now. I think everybody knew that.

There is a big drop-off between the B10/BE and the rest of the conferences. Their total point value is greater than the rest of the conferences combined.

The top teams in the SEC are looking better overall than the top teams in the ACC, which is interesting to me. This is especially unusual since Duke is so good (providing the ACC with 97 of its 112 points) and Kentucky surprisingly bad (only 17 of 139) right now.

Bowl Eligibility - Conference Breakdown (Nov 26)

Bowl Eligibility - Conference Breakdown (Nov 26)

Submitted by Tauro on November 26th, 2012 at 1:51 PM

[edited to fix Big Ten # and chart]

Another crazy weekend that really impacted the bowl games, and in particular, Georgia Tech. 

Your recap of bowl affiliations by conference:

Big Ten – 8 affiliations

Rose, Heart of Dallas, Outback, Gator, Capital One, Buffalo Wild Wings, Meineke Car Care and  Little Ceasars

ACC – 8 affiliations

Orange, Sun, Music City, Chick Fil A, Russell Athletic, Independence, Military and Belk

B12 – 7 affiliations

Fiesta, Cotton, Pinstripe, Buffalo Wild Wings, Alamo, Meineke Car Care and Holiday

Big East – 6 affiliations

BBVA Compass, Liberty*, Pin Stripe, Russell Athletic, Belk and Beef O’Brady’s

Conference USA – 6 affiliations

Heart of Dallas, Liberty*, Armed Forces, Hawaii, New Orleans and Beef O’Brady’s

MAC – 3 affiliations

Go Daddy, Little Caesars and Famous Idaho Potato

Mountain West – 5 affiliations

Armed Forces, Hawaii*, Las Vegas, Poinsettia and New Mexico

PAC 12 – 7 affiliations

Rose, Sun, Kraft Fight Hunger, Alamo, Holiday, Las Vegas and New Mexico

SEC – 10 affiliations

Sugar, BBVA Compass, Cotton, Outback, Gator, Capital One, Music City, Liberty*, Chik Fil A and Independence

Sun Belt – 2 affiliations

Go Daddy and New Orleans

WAC – 2 affiliations

Hawaii* and Famous Idaho Potato

At Large Bids – 5

BCS Championship, Fiesta, Sugar and Orange

Other Bids (Independent) – 3

Poinsettia (takes BYU eligible), Kraft Fight Hunger (takes Navy if eligible) and Military (takes Army if eligible)

* Liberty takes either CUSA or SEC team and Hawaii takes Mountain West or WAC team

In total, 35 bowl games meaning 70 slots that have to be filled by eligible teams.  Let us see how each conference fairs in terms of eligible teams.  This is likely the last entry for this season since I expect that after next weekend we will know all of the eligible teams AND where they will be going.  However, one new addition.

Did someone say cha...


It was requested that I add a chart to make it easier to see the eligible teams by conference.  Hopefully the following chart will do the job:

Your conference-by-conference breakdown:

Big Ten

Eligible Teams:

Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Purdue and Wisconsin


As a conference, the Big Ten really wanted both Purdue and Michigan State to win for greater visibility during the bowl season.  And they did just that each becoming bowl eligible with identical 6-6 records.  With OSU and Penn State out of the bowl picture, it will mean tougher opponents for the remaining teams with the conference only fielding 7 of the 8 teams it needed to fill its obligations.


Eligible Teams:

Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, NC State and Virginia Tech


Virginia Tech reach a bowl game for the 20thstraight season with its victory of Virginia.  Wake Forest, on the other hand, could not beat Vanderbilt and will remain home.  Georgia Tech, by virtue of their lose to Georgia, now needs to win the ACC Championship game to guarantee themselves a bowl game.  Otherwise, their 6-7 record will leave them hoping there will be an insufficient number of eligible teams requiring the NCAA to use its eligibility rules for such circumstances.  The ACC currently has 6 teams eligible out of a required 8, but Georgia Tech’s status is up in the air.

Big 12

Eligible Teams:

Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, TCU, Texas Tech and West Virginia


It is still hard to believe we are this late into the season and still talking about West Virginia’s eligibility given how they started the year.  Yet, at long last, the Mountaineers will be in a bowl game after defeating Iowa State.  High scoring Baylor outlasted Texas Tech to also reach bowl eligibility.  The Big 12 will finish with 9 eligible teams while only requiring 7 to fill its obligations.

Big East

Eligible Teams:

Cincinnati, Louisville, Rutgers and Syracuse

On the Cusp:

Pittsburgh (South Florida)


It is remarkable that, even though they are 7-5, Syracuse is actually in the BCS bowl conversation.  Though they will not be selected, as the rule is based on where they wind up in the BCS rankings with Rutgers and Louisville, it still demonstrates the turnaround for their season.  Pittsburgh defeated Rutgers given them a much easier road to bowl eligibility this week against South Florida.  Assuming they win, the Big East will have 5 teams out of a required 6 obligations.

Conference USA

Eligible Teams:

UCF, East Carolina, Rice, SMU and Tulsa


Marshall lost in double overtime to East Carolina to fall out of bowl contention.  SMU and Rice, on the other hand, both won their final games and are now eligible for a bowl.  Conference USA finishes with 5 eligible teams while requiring 6 for their affiliations.


Eligible Teams:

BYU, Notre Dame and Navy


Notre Dame will be going to the BCS Championship.  No other changes for the Independents.  They finish with 3 bowl teams while having 3 affiliations.


Eligible Teams:

Ball State, Bowling Green, Central Michigan, Kent State, Ohio, Northern Illinois and Toledo.


As expected, Central Michigan defeated UMass and is now bowl eligible.  The MAC finishes with 7 eligible teams while only having 3 bowl affiliations.

Mountain West

Eligible Teams:

Air Force, Fresno State, San Diego State, Boise State, Nevada


The MWC was already complete with 5 eligible teams to fill its 5 affiliations.

PAC 12

Eligible Teams:

Arizona, Arizona State, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, UCLA, USC and Washington


The PAC-12 has eight eligible teams for seven affiliations.


Eligible Teams:

Alabama, Georgia, Florida, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Texas A&M and Vanderbilt


Missouri lost to Texas A&M meaning they will be staying home this bowl season while Ole Miss defeated Mississippi State to reach bowl eligibility.  The SEC will have 9 eligible teams coming one short of its 10 obligations.

Sun Belt

Eligible Teams:

Arkansas State, Louisiana-Lafayette, Louisiana-Monroe, Middle Tennessee State and
Western Kentucky


Troy lost their last game meaning the Sun Belt is done with 5 eligible teams.  They are affiliated with only 2 bowl games.


Eligible Teams:

Utah State, Louisiana Tech, San Jose State


When it comes to bowl eligibility, the WAC is already set with 3 teams.  They are affiliated with 2 bowl games.

Final Analysis

Of the 70 slots available, 71 teams have already qualified, which includes Pittsburgh who should become eligible this week.  The impact of Pittsburgh winning will likely affect one of the WAC or Sun Belt bowl eligible teams.

With these numbers including Georgia Tech, it does appear that they will have to win their game against Florida State in the ACC Championship to maintain their eligibility. Ah the craziness of the ACC!

Last week, I predicted that the following schools would become bowl eligible after the past weekend:

Central Michigan(Won)
Michigan State(Won)
Virginia Tech(Won)

Perfect score, though several other teams also became eligible (SMU, West Virginia, Mississippi).  It means that there will be enough school eligible to fill all the bowl games, which organizers of some low-rated games are thankful for.

Conference Power Rankings: Week 3

Conference Power Rankings: Week 3

Submitted by 1464 on September 18th, 2011 at 2:26 PM
Info on how I score the CPR rankings is available here.



When I was a young boy my mother sat me down and said, "Son, one day you will grow up to write a moderately valued diary on a sports blog with a small but passionate user base."

I was a child of the 80's, so the term 'blog' was completely foreign to me. I dismissed this idea as a residual effect of too much acid and 'Earth, Wind, and Fire'. My mom was involved heavily in the 'counter-culture' movement of her era.

Twenty-some years later, as I sit here pondering whether my mom was clarevoyant or had just stumbled into some really good acid, I ask for your help. I want to write the best damned moderately valued diary that I can. I need to live up to my mother's expectations. Being that this is only my third week doing this, I am very open to suggestions. If you guys have any, let me know, as I will try to incorporate them as best I can.

The Scene

Not much movement towards the front and the rear of the line, as both the top 3 and bottom 4 conferences remain the same. The middle saw big drops by the PAC 12 (5-4) and CUSA (5-3, with wins over only WAC and FBS teams). It also saw two conferences make decent gains as the ACC (6-2) and the MWC (5-2) both climbed multiple spots.

The BIG 12 continues to dominate the OOC schedule, going 9-1 this week to accumulate a 23-3 record. This record is even more impressive if you take into account the fact that they have played the fewest FBS cupcakes (6) of any BCS conference and have the most wins (also 6) against other BCS schools.

The SEC is trying to keep pace, but going 4-2 this week ensured that the BIG 12 gained ground on all other conferences. The two horse race for the innagural Cy-Hawk Trophy Memorial Award (CHTMA) has officially turned into a one point five horse race.

The Cy-Hawk Trophy Memorial Award, given to the Top Conference in the FCS.


CPR - Week 3

Conf. Wk 1 Wk 2 Wk 3 Season CPR + / -
Big 12 10-0 4-1 9-1 23-2 1.000 -
SEC 10-2 8-0 4-2 22-4 0.695 -
Big 10 10-2 7-5 9-3 26-10 0.376 -
Mount 4-2 3-2 5-2 12-6 0.338 +3
Big East 8-0 4-4 4-3 16-7 0.324 -
ACC 7-3 6-2 6-2 19-7 0.310 +2
Pac 12 8-4 6-2 5-4 19-10 0.272 -3
Indy 2-2 1-3 2-2 5-7 0.123 -1
CUSA 5-6 3-3 5-3 13-12 -0.011 -3
MAC 8-5 5-5 1-8 13-10 -0.232 -
Sun Belt 0-7 4-4 2-5 6-16 -0.370 -
WAC 1-6 4-4 1-4 6-14 -0.549 -
FCS 2-36 0-20 1-15 3-71 -0.935 -

The Bakers Dozen

Propelled by strong wins over Auburn, Ohio State, and Kansas; the ACC jumped 3 spots and nestled into number 6 in our CPR rankings. FSU showed flashes against Oklahoma, but came up short. The soon to be NKOTB both lost this week, as Iowa defeated Pitt and USC made short work of Syracuse.

Big 10
The BIG 10 remained stagnant for the second week in a row, as a strong win by Illinois was offset by losses to two alleged conference contenders in OSU and MSU. Other teams, such as Penn State and Iowa sputtered but came through. The BIG 10 is starting to look like a microcosm of the NCAA conference picture as a whole; with a couple of solid players at the top, an extremely large middle class, and teams like Minnesota and Indiana fighting for food stamps.

Big 12
The BIG 12 still looks tough, even after they packed up a little bit of snow and pushed it down the mountain, creating a snowball effect that will change the landscape of college football as we know it. As noted at the top, their 23-2 record is as impressive as it looks from the outside. The BIG 12 will have to fail miserably during the bowl season if any other conference intends on capturing the coveted CHTMA this season.

Big East
WVU continues to will the Big East to mediocrity. Without the 'eers, the Big East would have had nothing to hang their straw hats on. UCONN lost a close game to Iowa State and Pitt "Sparty nooooooo'd" away a win to Iowa. Many toothless babies were conceived in the cornfields of Iowa on Saturday. Yes, I am aware that all babies are born toothless. Except, of course, for Michigan babies, which are all born with a mouth full of teeth and grow up to be Michigan Men.

Conference USA
CUSA didn't really give themselves a chance to shine this week, as their only marquee game pitted Tulsa against Okie State. The rest of their OOC schedule consisted of teams that the average college football fan has probably never heard of.

The first two weeks must have been sweet for the MAC. They were 13-10, posting a few noteworthy wins along with some respectable efforts against big named schools (shoutout to Toledo!). Apparently, at some point this week, student athletes throughout the midwest woke up and realized that they played in the MAC. Consequently, the MAC posted a 1-8 record this week, with only Ohio (NTO) saving face.

Mountain West
The Mountain West climbed an impressive 3 spots in this weeks CPR, due to a 5-2 record which brought them to 12-6 on the season. They are currently the only non-qualifier that is ahead of a BCS conference, surpassing the Big East, ACC, and PAC 12. Their five wins all came against other FBS schools, including one against Washington State and the PAC 12.

Pac 12
I'm waiting to have one of those head asploding moments when some clueless ESPN drone suggests that the PAC 12 can rival the SEC for the best conference in the nation. I know it will happen. The PAC 12 has had the worst season among BCS conferences. Their 19-10 record is padded by 7 wins against FCS schools and 5 more against the worst conference (WAC) in the FBS. They are 4-6 against other BCS schools.

Here's a philisophical head scratcher... Can the SEC form a team SO TALENTED that another SEC team cannot beat them? Trick question, because when the SEC plays with itself, everyone wins. Right, Gary? As it turns out, NCAA rules state that there HAS to be a team that loses. Condolences to Tennessee and the state of Mississippi, as your teams were all losers this week. Speaking of losers, Auburn... lol.

Sun Belt
God it gets boring breaking down the crappy conferences.

The WAC finished 0-4 against FBS opponents, cementing their place in the basement of the FBS and reminding me that I was supposed to be cleaning the basement while my wife is away getting groceries, and am instead creating a drawn out review of the week that was in college football.

Notre Dame finally played well enough to overcome themselves. If they stop turning the ball over, Lou Holtz may actually be proven right a few times this year. The service acadamies split their games against Northwestern (W) and SC (L). BYU got pounded by Utah, 54-10. BYU officials are checking into whether taking it that hard constitutes punishment for breaking the school's "no sex" policy.

Progress! The FCS got another win this week, as the Sycamores of Indiana State were triumphant over the Western Kentucky Hilltoppers. It wasn't even close, either, as Indiana State compiled a 44-16 win. This brings their three week record to 3-71. For those keeping score at home, that win percentage is 4% higher than the 2008 Detroit Lions.

Conference Names: In Retrospect

Conference Names: In Retrospect

Submitted by 1464 on August 27th, 2011 at 11:56 AM


I know this was discussed ad nauseum a few months ago, but I wanted to revisit it.  Sometimes, when faced with something we don't like and given no options to resolve, we actually warm up to an idea.  Whether it be complacency or a shift in opinion, I'm starting to think the Leaders and Legends conference names aren't as bad as we initially thought.  Am I wrong?

As an example, my wife and I named our son Hudson.  I got the feeling that a lot of people didn't like that name as it wasn't really common and sounded kind of funny the first 20 or so times we said it.  Almost two years later, everybody loves the name and doesn't see him as anything but Hudson.

In retrospect, some names are beyond salvagability.  Beaner's Coffee was a stupid idea when it was created.  It was still a stupid idea when it was finally changed.

So, am I suffering from some weird sort of Stockholm Syndrome (or Chicago Syndrome, as it may be) for feeling like these names are growing on me?  Or did we all just overreact a bit when the conference names were released?

I'll pose one last question - What if the Big 10 had ALWAYS had the Legends and Leaders divisions?  Would you have accepted them as tradition, or thought of them as an embarrasing representation of the conference?

OT: EA NCAA Evolution

OT: EA NCAA Evolution

Submitted by Noleverine on June 8th, 2011 at 7:13 PM

With everything going on with USC, Ohio State and this Pryor saga, we all can agree that the landscape of college football has changed.  The game is not what it used to, and in my epinion, it has been long overdue that video games change along with it.  The changes have already begun, as has been previously posted on here (can't find the thread but link to article here), in NCAA '12.  You can change divisions, and even create 16-team superconferences if you'd like, and which I look forward to doing.

However, the games have neglected one big dark side to college football-- recruiting violations.  I have been thinking how they could utilize a "cash shake" option in recruiting.  There could be a definite risk involved, with NCAA sanctions and the like.  You could choose to play dirty, or run a clean program (yay Michigan).  

Have a special hook-up with a dealership?  Tell your players they can get cars, or cash.  But run the risk of having an NCAA investigation. 

What other changed would you like to see them implement?  How could they improve your lazy evenings on the couch?  Share.

looking c-l-o-s-e-l-y

looking c-l-o-s-e-l-y

Submitted by blueheron on January 12th, 2010 at 6:58 AM

MGoBlog readers, feast your eyes on an uncommonly good college football column:

Mr. H is one of few sportswriters who has bothered to take a close look at the W-L records for the various conferences. He can see that the Big 10's 4-3 performance is arguably the best (and that it isn't even close).

How often have we heard about (say) the ACC's bowl record without any accompanying analysis? Ah...

Help finding old spreads

Help finding old spreads

Submitted by Bleedin9Blue on September 17th, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Hello MGoBloggers,

I'm looking for a little bit of help finding old spreads, specifically spreads for [all] bowl games after 1997 (so, all the bowl games since the BCS has been around in some form). I'm looking to do a comparison of the conferences (obviously focusing on the B10 and other "Big Six" conferences) to see if the general perception of conference rankings is correct. Hopefully by finding how many teams beat the spread I'll be able to do some sort of comparison to see how the conferences have looked these past couple of years.

One of the reasons I'm doing this is because I'm wondering just how screwed the B10 actually gets (if you couldn't guess, I'm not going to be completely unbiased going into this study, but I will try to be more objective than that sentence sounds) by having 2 teams in the BCS. My thought is, instead of looking at W/Ls, look at how many teams beat the spread. If the underdog was supposed to be by 10.5 but only lost by 3, obviously they're doing better against a superior team than the team that lost by 14 in similar circumstances. Thus, if we look at W/L adjust with the spread, we can get a better idea of how good each conference is.

I'm going to develop the idea further and go into more depth now, but I didn't want to spend too much time thinking about it if it's impossible to find the spreads on each game.

I'd also do this with interconference games but that would add a lot more work and I don't have that much time.

I've done a few Google searches [to find old odds] but haven't found anywhere with a real extensive listing. And I haven't found really anything for years before 2007.

Thus, fellow MGoBloggers, help me to find old spreads for bowl games and I will write a diary to entertain and educate you in the future.


Schlabach ranks the Top 8 conferences

Schlabach ranks the Top 8 conferences

Submitted by I Miss Bursley on August 9th, 2009 at 2:46 PM

ESPN is trying to stoke the fire some more. Slightly half-assed but still interesting ranking of the conferences. B10 comes in at 5. MWC over Big East...…

I know I shouldn't have, but I enjoyed the fact that he says that the B10 isn't strong without M.

Any predictions as to how this will look at the end of the year, post-bowls? I'd like to see us at least in the top 3 but somehow I don't see that happening. Hope to see the Big XII at the top mostly because, well their games are the equivalent of...i dont know, something to do with lightning or hurricanes or something?