Big Ten vs. Other Conferences

djkent01 · 06-01-2008, 12:27 PM

A very long time ago, in the days of the Big 8, I read an article that asserted that a determination of the best football conference could be made based on the number of former players in the NFL - then went on to "prove" the assertion with statistics. It was very interesting and I wonder what more current stats would show. At the time I read the article the Big 8 was clearly the best but the trend was favoring the SEC. Kind of proved itself out IMO.

In regards to the B11 - again IMO - while the conference has its years, it's never as good as its reputation. The B11 is ALWAYS rated higher than its accomplishments and ALWAYS gets better bowl bids than it deserves - and it shows year in and out (football and basketball) by the post-season win-loss stats. Last IMO - it's because of the major media markets the B11 is represented by. And for some reason (maybe ESPN and the major media markets), it's the darling of the east coast markets and benefits on the west coast due to the Pac-10 alliance.

MontyBurns · 06-01-2008, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

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.

*** SOUTHERNHAWK FACT CORRECTION ***

For the second time, the Big East does not recognize a "co-champion". They have a tie-breaker to determine the champion. And in 2004, the champion was not Syracuse. The Big 12 does not recognize co-champions either. ISU made up the "Co-champions of the Big 12 North less the tie breaker" for marketing purposes. It is not recognized by the Big 12 as a championship. Just like the Big East does not recognize Syracuse as a 2004 champion, despite your lunatic posts.

Originally Posted by djkent01

The B11 is ALWAYS rated higher than its accomplishments and ALWAYS gets better bowl bids than it deserves - and it shows year in and out (football and basketball) by the post-season win-loss stats. Last IMO - it's because of the major media markets the B11 is represented by. And for some reason (maybe ESPN and the major media markets), it's the darling of the east coast markets and benefits on the west coast due to the Pac-10 alliance.

Right on the money. The Big 10 are mostly huge schools (40-50k+ students) and therefore have huge alumni bases in major cities like Chicago, Detroit, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, etc. This means Big 10 games bring good tv ratings which means the Big 10 gets better bowl bids than they deserve based on accomplishments on the field. That's the way it is -- after all, college football is a business. I don't know why the Big Ten gets more props than deserved on the west coast. They probably like the Pac 10 alliance since overrated teams like Iowa, Michigan, and Illinois have made USC look really good in their last few bowl games. In fact USC is 4-0 against the Big Ten in bowls since 2002 with a combined score of 147-66. They are 1-1 against the Big 12 in that same time. You better believe they want to keep the overrated Big 10 vs. Pac 10 thing going.

ajk4st8 · 06-01-2008, 01:57 PM

Comparison on how many teams won games against teams over .500 during non conference play.

Teams beaten who are .500 or better

SEC -
Louisville (Kentucky) 5-5
K-State (Auburn) 5-5
Oklahoma State (Georgia) 5-5
Virginia Tech (LSU) 8-2

PAC 10 -
Tennessee (Cal) 7-3
Michigan (Oregon) 8-3

Big East -
Auburn (USF) 7-4
Mississippi State (WVA) 6-4
Oregon State(Cincinnati) 6-4
Maryland(WVA) 5-5
NC State(Louisville) 5-5

Big 12 -
Illinois (Missouri) 8-3
Iowa (Iowa State) 6-5
Miami (Oklahoma) 5-5
Wake Forrest (Nebraska) 6-4

ACC -
Alabama(Florida State)6-4
Northwestern(Duke) 6-5
Rutgers(Maryland) 6-4
UCONN (UVA) 8-2
Texas A&M(Miami) 6-5

Notre Dame-
UCLA(ND) 5-5

Big 10 -
Nobody.

Psyclone · 06-01-2008, 02:21 PM

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.

Once upon a time the Big 10 was considered the premier conference in America. Those stats, while they appear a little better than expected, do confirm how far the Big 10 has fallen. Against the Big 12, SEC and Pac10 the record is 43-57. I wonder how the stats look in the last couple of years, when it really seems like the Big 10 has been on a down cycle.

SouthernHawk · 06-01-2008, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Psyclone

Once upon a time the Big 10 was considered the premier conference in America. Those stats, while they appear a little better than expected, do confirm how far the Big 10 has fallen. Against the Big 12, SEC and Pac10 the record is 43-57. I wonder how the stats look in the last couple of years, when it really seems like the Big 10 has been on a down cycle.

And the Big 12's stats in comparison to the SEC, ACC, and Big East, they are 23-32. I can twist stats too.

And actually, ajk, the Big Ten had wins over Florida and Texas A&M in OOC.

And again, I'll repeat, I've acknowledged that last year the BigTen has been down. There is really no debating that. My argument has been that you cannot base how strong the conference has been for a period of time on a single year's statistics.

Why am I making this argument? Because over the past year, I have read so many posts that bash the Big Ten for being such a weak conference for so long. I guess to me, these stats prove that all of the BCS conferences have been relatively even for the past decade, without one separating itsself from the group.

The people who are arguing still that the Big Ten is such a terrible have no statistics to back up their argument past last year.

Cyclone711 · 06-01-2008, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by MontyBurns

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.

Wow you flip back and forth like none other just to try and save face. Face it, you're only still arguing because you are biased and won't let someone else "beat you on the interwebs".

SouthernHawk · 06-01-2008, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by Cyclone711

Wow you flip back and forth like none other just to try and save face. Face it, you're only still arguing because you are biased and won't let someone else "beat you on the interwebs".

For some reason, this is how I picture Monty:

cayin · 06-01-2008, 04:12 PM

All of the power conferences are tough. That is just the way it is. Not every conference is up every year, but still to play in one is tough. The Big 10 has been just as good as any of the others over time. However, one can argue the Big 10 has underachieved given the amount of resourses. They had great tv exposure, great biased ESPN GameDay and ESPN coverage overall, Big Stadiums, and lots of money.

ajk4st8 · 06-01-2008, 04:17 PM

Ok. Lets just stick with last year.

Last year the Big 10 was extremely overrated.

Now lets wait for the Big 10 to change that. Im no holding my breath.

SouthernHawk · 06-01-2008, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by ajk4st8

Ok. Lets just stick with last year.

Last year the Big 10 was extremely overrated.

Now lets wait for the Big 10 to change that. Im no holding my breath.

Did the Big 12 North change that in one year? Yes. In fact, the Big 12 North was absolutely horrible for quite a long time, and then all of the sudden, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and KSU to an extent just popped up out of the dead.

Also, last year, the BT had OSU, UM, and Wisconsin in the pre-season rankings. OSU went to the NC game, UM beat a very solid Florida team, and UW nearly knocked off a very strong Tennessee team in the Outback Bowl.

A decent PSU team knocked off a decent TAMU team, and Indiana competed with Okie State (which was not expected). The only team that showed they were overrated from the Big Ten was Illinois. The rest of the conference had a relatively solid post-season showing.

ajk4st8 · 06-01-2008, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by SouthernHawk

Did the Big 12 North change that in one year? Yes. In fact, the Big 12 North was absolutely horrible for quite a long time, and then all of the sudden, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and KSU to an extent just popped up out of the dead.

Also, last year, the BT had OSU, UM, and Wisconsin in the pre-season rankings. OSU went to the NC game, UM beat a very solid Florida team, and UW nearly knocked off a very strong Tennessee team in the Outback Bowl.

A decent PSU team knocked off a decent TAMU team, and Indiana competed with Okie State (which was not expected). The only team that showed they were overrated from the Big Ten was Illinois. The rest of the conference had a relatively solid post-season showing.

Fair statements, except it only includes bowl games.

Bader · 06-01-2008, 04:32 PM

I don't know about that. I don't think Illinois was over rated last year. Prior to the Rose Bowl they were what, 16? I'd be willing to say that was fairly accurate.

However, the Rose Bowl, in its retarded unending desire to pit the Pac 10 and the Big 10 basically fed Illinois to the wolves, as they were hugely overmatched against USC. Had the Illini played in the Outback or Cap One bowls, I think the outcome would have been rather different

Edit: And the Rose Bowl would have been sweet had it been Mizzou against USC, stupid 2 team max

SouthernHawk · 06-01-2008, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by ajk4st8

Fair statements, except it only includes bowl games.

Pre-conference OOC, I'll give you that the BT was absolutely horrible. Some bad losses (App State and Oregon for UM). But I think the conference solidified itsself as at least mediocre in the post-season for last year.

This year? Who knows. There's a lot of talent coming in to a lot of the teams, and Iowa, Purdue, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Northestern, Penn State, Michigan State, and Michigan are all fighting for bowl games (OSU is pretty much guaranteed). There really are no basement dwellers this year (at least that's what is expected).

I dunno, I guess what makes this all so fun is that A) Football season is only 90-ish days away, B) Iowa and ISU should be improved, and C) the entire season is wide open this year for the entire sport.

ajk4st8 · 06-01-2008, 05:05 PM

NW, Iowa, and Minnesota wont be GOOD.

But certainly the conference should be better.

SouthernHawk · 06-01-2008, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by ajk4st8

NW, Iowa, and Minnesota wont be GOOD.

But certainly the conference should be better.

Minnesota, no.

Northwestern is going to have quite the potent offense.

And I don't see why Iowa won't improve next year. They have just as much to prove as the rest of the teams, and have the retuning players to do it (hopefully).

That's why they play the games I guess.