Big Ten vs. Other Conferences

twojman · 06-01-2008, 01:08 AM

The Big 10 should be the dominant conference in the country. Before the BTN they had the best TV package, the best bowl tie-ins, the most money, the highest population base and I believe also the highest amount of living grads in the country. With all of those inherent advantages, why doesn't the Big 10 dominate everyone like they should? They sure get the love come BCS time and poll times.

MontyBurns · 06-01-2008, 01:23 AM

Originally Posted by Clone9

Oh come on, 47.5% is pretty much....we'll give him the averages for the Big 10.

Well, 50% would be exactly average, so 47.5% is below average.

Why is the conference that supposedly dominates all other conferences below average?

Iowa has a losing record against out-of-conference BCS opponents the past ten years. They have a 3-7 record against ISU and a 3-3 bowl record in that time frame. The only other out-of-conference BCS games I recall are 2-0 against Syracuse and 1-1 against Arizona State. That adds up to 9-11.

Edit to add: Just checked and in addition to the games above, in the last 10 years Iowa is 0-1 against Nebraska, 0-1 against Kansas State, and 0-1 against Arizona. That makes them 9-14 against out-of-conference BCS opponents.....including 4-10 against the Big Twelve. It's hard to believe that they're really a national power, no matter what their fans say...

SouthernHawk · 06-01-2008, 01:48 AM

Originally Posted by Clone9

Oh come on, 47.5% is pretty much....we'll give him the averages for the Big 10.

What are Iowa's numbers within that time frame though...especially against non-conference opponents? Just wondering......

Iowa is 4-6 against the Big 12 since 2000.

Here's the Big 12's stats (since 2000):

ACC: 9-13
Big Ten : 18-15
Big East: 2-5
SEC: 12-14
Pac10: 19-19

Overall, that is 60-70, or 46.1%

Also, in case anybody was wondering, Big Ten teams played an average of 1.6 BCS teams per season (146 games played against a BCS opponent, divided by 8 years, divided by 11)

The Big 12 has played an average of 1.3 BCS teams per year.

So, overall, the Big Ten has had a higher winning % overall against BCS teams since 2000, has played an overall larger number of BCS teams, and each BigTen team averages more games against a BCS team per season than a Big 12 team does.

The argument that the Big 12 is the stronger conferences made my some folks can be made for one year (last year), but statistically, the two have been relatively even over the past 8 years.

SouthernHawk · 06-01-2008, 01:52 AM

Originally Posted by MontyBurns

Well, 50% would be exactly average, so 47.5% is below average.

Why is the conference that supposedly dominates all other conferences below average?

Iowa has a losing record against out-of-conference BCS opponents the past ten years. They have a 3-7 record against ISU and a 3-3 bowl record in that time frame. The only other out-of-conference BCS games I recall are 2-0 against Syracuse and 1-1 against Arizona State. That adds up to 9-11.

Edit to add: Just checked and in addition to the games above, in the last 10 years Iowa is 0-1 against Nebraska, 0-1 against Kansas State, and 0-1 against Arizona. That makes them 9-14 against out-of-conference BCS opponents.....including 4-10 against the Big Twelve. It's hard to believe that they're really a national power, no matter what their fans say...

Thank you for posting this Monty - I'd be interested to see what you think of a 46.1% overall against BCS conference teams is then (Big 12's)?

I mean, I'd like to know how you can prove to me (or anybody else) how the Big 12 is so much stronger than the Big Ten (statistically) if they place behind the BT in overall games played against BCS teams, and winning percentage?

And none of this "they played tougher teams" garbage, because remember, the Big Ten played a total of 8 more games against BCS teams, averaged more wins per season against BCS teams, and the Big 12's biggest hits came at the hands of "The weak Big East and ACC" (thanks jumbopackage for pointing this out).

MontyBurns · 06-01-2008, 10:51 AM

The Big 10 is 15-18 against the Big 12 in the past 10 years. There is no valid comparison of records against "third-party" teams because the conferences didn't play the same "third-party" teams. But that's okay, no spin of a "third-party" comparison is needed because there have been 33 games between Big 10 & Big 12 teams. And the results speak for themselves.

Actually, the Big 10 has done pretty well if you take out the bottom teams. For example, Iowa's contribution to that 15-18 record is 4-10. That means the rest of the Big 10 is 11-8 against the Big 12.

aeroclone · 06-01-2008, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

Iowa is 4-6 against the Big 12 since 2000.

Here's the Big 12's stats (since 2000):

ACC: 9-13
Big Ten : 18-15
Big East: 2-5
SEC: 12-14
Pac10: 19-19

Overall, that is 60-70, or 46.1%

Also, in case anybody was wondering, Big Ten teams played an average of 1.6 BCS teams per season (146 games played against a BCS opponent, divided by 8 years, divided by 11)

The Big 12 has played an average of 1.3 BCS teams per year.

So, overall, the Big Ten has had a higher winning % overall against BCS teams since 2000, has played an overall larger number of BCS teams, and each BigTen team averages more games against a BCS team per season than a Big 12 team does.

The argument that the Big 12 is the stronger conferences made my some folks can be made for one year (last year), but statistically, the two have been relatively even over the past 8 years.

Looks like the Big 12 hasn't had the chance to pad the OOC BCS record against the Big East like the little 11 has, having played then 7 times vs 20 for the little 11. It would be amazing what a few extra matchups against a team like Syracuse can do for the win loss record.....

But to save SH the trouble, I realize that beating Syracuse isn't as easy as it sounds and that sometimes it takes a miracle multi overtime effort to pull it off even for some of the nation's elite teams, so maybe I'm way off base with that one.

cayin · 06-01-2008, 11:08 AM

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

I just thought I'd post this for future reference. Basiocally, it shows that the BT has been pretty much dead even with every conference except for the Pac 10, who has a winning record vs. every other conference since 2000.

Anyways.

ACC: 10-10
Big 12: 15-18
Big East: 14-6
SEC: 12-15
Pac10: 16-24

Against non-Pac10 teams, the BT is 51-49. Against all conferences, the BT is 67-74, for a 47.5 winning percentage.

Anyways, I just thought it was interesting. I'll do the Big 12 next.

Those numbers do not mean a darn thing. If one conference has some of their better teams playing a higher percentage of another conference's bottom half, then the numbers will look good for the 1st one and bad for the second one.

MontyBurns · 06-01-2008, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by aeroclone

But to save SH the trouble, I realize that beating Syracuse isn't as easy as it sounds and that sometimes it takes a miracle multi overtime effort to pull it off even for some of the nation's elite teams, so maybe I'm way off base with that one.

Well, Iowa (twice), Illinois (twice) and Purdue (once) have played Syracuse in that time frame. It looks like Syracuse is a major part of the Big Ten's out-of-conference BCS strategy.

But as I actually heard an Iowa fan say before the first Iowa/Syracuse game, "Syracuse is much better than their 1-10 record indicates".

aeroclone · 06-01-2008, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by MontyBurns

Well, Iowa (twice), Illinois (twice) and Purdue (once) have played Syracuse in that time frame. It looks like Syracuse is a major part of the Big Ten's out-of-conference BCS strategy.

But as I actually heard an Iowa fan say before the first Iowa/Syracuse game, "Syracuse is much better than their 1-10 record indicates".

And after watching that game, either the Iowa fan was right, or more likely, the EIU team was a lot crappier than their delusional fanbase would indicate.

SouthernHawk · 06-01-2008, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by aeroclone

Looks like the Big 12 hasn't had the chance to pad the OOC BCS record against the Big East like the little 11 has, having played then 7 times vs 20 for the little 11. It would be amazing what a few extra matchups against a team like Syracuse can do for the win loss record.....

But to save SH the trouble, I realize that beating Syracuse isn't as easy as it sounds and that sometimes it takes a miracle multi overtime effort to pull it off even for some of the nation's elite teams, so maybe I'm way off base with that one.

Right, well, let's totally disregard the Big 12's losing record against the ACC and SEC too.

This isn't about last year. I know that's hard for some to understand. This is over the past 10 years. I'm not arguing that the BigTen wasn't down last year, or less than average the year before.

What I am saying is that the BT has been right up there with the other conferences, and the numbers prove it.

Originally Posted by cayin

Those numbers do not mean a darn thing. If one conference has some of their better teams playing a higher percentage of another conference's bottom half, then the numbers will look good for the 1st one and bad for the second one.

Right, well, you do realize that these numbers include at least 4 BCS teams in the post-season per year, right?

The entire point of my argument is not that the Big 12 is weak. In fact, quite the contrary. My point is that the Big Ten is not as weak as some would believe. But, if you want to ignore the numbers and try to spin it and say "Well, it's because the top teams in the BT played the bottom half of the teams in other conferences" - go right ahead.

I'd like to point this out, Baylor, Iowa State, and Kansas have the fewest number of games against BCS teams in that time frame for the Big 12 (meaning, the top 9 teams have the majority of the wins/losses for the Big 12).

SouthernHawk · 06-01-2008, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by MontyBurns

Well, Iowa (twice), Illinois (twice) and Purdue (once) have played Syracuse in that time frame. It looks like Syracuse is a major part of the Big Ten's out-of-conference BCS strategy.

But as I actually heard an Iowa fan say before the first Iowa/Syracuse game, "Syracuse is much better than their 1-10 record indicates".

Well, when Purdue beat them 51-0, they were Co-Champs of the Big East in 2004.

When Illionois played them, the Illini finished last in the Big Ten.

So what's your point? That Purdue beat the Big East champ by 50 points, and that the worst team in the BT played another bad team in the Big East?

MontyBurns · 06-01-2008, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

Well, when Purdue beat them 51-0, they were Co-Champs of the Big East in 2004.

*** SOUTHERNHAWK FACT CORRECTION ***

Syracuse was not co-champs of the Big East in 2004. The Big East does not recognize "Co-Champions". There is no such thing as being a "Co-Champion" anywhere but the Big Ten. Syracuse had a 4-2 record but lost the tie-breaker of head-to-head play against the other 4-2 teams. The tiebreaker is used to determine the conference champion.

SouthernHawk · 06-01-2008, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by MontyBurns

*** SOUTHERNHAWK FACT CORRECTION ***

Syracuse was not co-champs of the Big East in 2004. The Big East does not recognize "Co-Champions". There is no such thing as being a "Co-Champion" anywhere but the Big Ten. Syracuse had a 4-2 record but lost the tie-breaker of head-to-head play against the other 4-2 teams. The tiebreaker is used to determine the conference champion.

Monty, until you can actually form a logical argument to refute my points, I'm done arguing against you.

I'm more than happy to debate this issue with anybody, but unless you can provide statistical information to back up your argument, nothing you have said is relevant to this conversation.

And by the way, my last comment to you, yes, the Big East does have co-champs. They don't get a trophy like they do in the BT, but then again, neither did ISU when they were co-champs of the Big 12 North.

MontyBurns · 06-01-2008, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

I'd like to point this out, Baylor, Iowa State, and Kansas have the fewest number of games against BCS teams in that time frame for the Big 12 (meaning, the top 9 teams have the majority of the wins/losses for the Big 12).

The same is true for the Big 10.

Did you actually discover that the teams going to bowl games get to play more nonconference games than the teams that don't go to bowl games? My God, you must be some kind of genius. Keep us informed when you make your next big discovery!

agcy68 · 06-01-2008, 12:15 PM

SH,
I am not sure why you are so hyped on proving the Big X is "not a bad conference", but I can only assume it is because you are sick of people saying that it is. In my mind, there are 3 reasons for people saying this:
1. The talking heads on ESPN propping up the Big X as the best in the country (to get viewers for games on their channels).
2. The ISU/UofI rivalry.
3. The fact that some Hawk fans seem to think that finishing 6th in the Big X is as good as finishing 4th or higher in other conferences (usually because of the better bowl tie-in that the Big X has)

For me, I get sick 1 and 3. Number 2 tends be the canned answer when UofI fan claims that the ISU/UofI game is ISU's superbowl. What you are showing here does nothing to dispel #2 and #3. When it is shown, however, that UofI has the weakest SOS of all BCS teams, it tends to validate the idea that UofI makes bowl games because of scheduling rather than ability.