Views
1580
Comments
0
Posted by:
Prove It
|

Also see: 

Benchmark Conference Comparison Part 2 - Big East

Benchmark Conference Comparison Part 3 - PAC 10

Benchmark Conference Comparison Part 4 - ACC

Benchmark Conference Comparison Part 5 - Big 12

Benchmark Conference Comparison Part 6 - Big 10

Benchmark Conference Comparison Finale - Summary, Who's Best

We've all read the dribble again and again, claims conference ABC is better/worse than XYZ because of the number of award trophy winners, number of players in the pros, results of a few games, number of titles, schedule, yadda yadda yadda... lengthy nauseating gibberish repeating the blatantly obvious when it is equally obvious NONE of these are applicable to the question at hand.

So yours truly, for the enjoyment of his loyal 6 readers, has created the best apples-to-apples comparison you will find.

The Standings

Just simply looking at wins and losses has a huge shortcoming - it doesn't reflect the difference between the teams.  For example, a team that finished 2nd in the Big East is expected to beat a team that finished 5th in their division in the Big 12 - the win shouldn't weigh heavily in comparing the 2 conferences.

Brief Overview

This is an apples to apples comparison between the major 6 conferences.  The conference places were equated between the major 6 conferences to account for the difference in number of members (2nd and 3rd in the Big 10 was equated to a 2nd place team in a division, etc.)

All of the inter-conference games were evaluated based on how the teams finished in their conference (approx. 670 games).  "Even" means both teams finished about the same in their conferences, "Higher" means the team from the conference in question finished higher than their opponent, "Lower" means the team finished lower than their opponent.

A Benchmark (expected) record was determined for the conference.  The benchmark wins is half the wins when the teams were equal plus the games when the teams were higher.  The benchmark loss is half the wins when the teams were equal plus the number of games when the team was lower.

The actual record of the results of the games was compared to the benchmark by subtracting the benchmark wins from the actual wins.  A high (positive) number means the conference did well, a low (negative) number means the conference did poorly.

When there was a large difference between the benchmark and actual record, the record was investigated to determine the best reason for the difference.

If you Aren't Asleep Yet...

After placing about 380 team in their conference standings (the total number of teams over the time span checked), and checking the results of 670 inter conference games this is the 1st part of the results (thank you MS Excel).

Each conference will be split into different blogs because of length and because I feel the need to get my blog total up to keep pace with Badgerfan.

You will be happy to know I will skip most of the above in the future, replacing it with a link to this blog out of consideration to the employers of my loyal 6 readers.

Terminology Note

If the difference is only half a game I consider the record even (someone had to win the odd game).

When I refer to a difference of 1 game, I am talking about the number of games whose outcome would need to be reversed to be even (a 5-3 record would be a difference of 1 game since a change in outcome of 1 game would even the record).

When I refer to ranking, I am referring to conference ranking, not the polls.  (I could care less about the polls, having no faith in the sportswriters or coaches ability to overcome historical or regional biases in ranking teams.)

SEC - ACC

 

ACC by Year

 

Even

Higher

Lower

Total

Benchmark

vs.

 

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

BM

2007

3

-0

2

-0

1

-3

6

-3

3.5

-5.5

2.5

2006

1

-0

3

-0

3

-1

7

-1

3.5

-4.5

3.5

2005

0

-0

3

-2

1

-0

4

-2

5

-1

-1

2004

1

-1

1

-0

1

-1

3

-2

2

-3

1

2003

0

-1

3

-1

1

-3

4

-5

4.5

-4.5

-0.5

2002

1

-0

2

-0

0

-5

3

-5

2.5

-5.5

0.5

 

Cumulative from 2007

2007

3

-0

2

-0

1

-3

6

-3

3.5

-5.5

2.5

2006

4

-0

5

-0

4

-4

13

-4

7

-10

6

2005

4

-0

8

-2

5

-4

17

-6

12

-11

5

2004

5

-1

9

-2

6

-5

20

-8

14

-14

6

2003

5

-2

12

-3

7

-8

24

-13

18.5

-18.5

5.5

2002

6

-2

14

-3

7

-13

27

-18

21

-24

6

 

75.0%

82.4%

35.0%

60.0%

46.7%

 

This is the 2nd most games between any 2 of the major 6 conferences with a whopping 45 games over 6 years.  Proximity has created some of the best inter-conference rivalries in the nation.  This is also the best record vs. the benchmark for the SEC.

The 6 games above the benchmark can be tracked to the 2006 and 2007 season against the ACC, during which the SEC is an impressive 13-4 without a loss when matched evenly or when the SEC is the higher team.  Prior to 2006 the series was even.

The games involve a lot of nearly even match ups (give or take 1 conference spot).  The games involve 9 teams from the SEC and half of the ACC, and involve teams from conference 1st to division last.  The SEC is currently playing approx. 1 division spot higher (if the teams in the SEC were elevated 1 spot, the benchmark would be even).

The most likely cause for the ACC woes in this analysis is the downfall of Miami and FSU over the last 2 years without a viable successors.  For example, in 2007 without viable successors the ACC Champion fell (hard) to the SEC champion and a Big 12 division 2nd place team, while the other ACC division champion nearly lost to the Big 10 8th place team.  With a large number of games against the ACC (approx. 1/3 of the total non-conference games), nobody has benefited more from the downfall of the ACC than the SEC in their rivalries.

This occurs more than once in this series of analysis.  When the top teams falter, nothing has a stronger impact on their benchmark record.  Aside from the losses the top teams may incur, the elevation in ranking of lesser teams converts would be even matches into higher matches, and lower matches into even matches.  The elevation in team standing accounts for approx. half of the benchmark record while their losses account for most of the other half.

SEC-Big 12

 

Big 12 by Year

 

Even

Higher

Lower

Total

Benchmark

vs.

 

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

BM

2007

0

-0

2

-0

1

-2

3

-2

2

-3

1

2006

0

-0

1

-1

1

-1

2

-2

2

-2

0

2005

0

-1

0

-0

1

-0

1

-1

0.5

-1.5

0.5

2004

0

-0

1

-0

0

-1

1

-1

1

-1

0

2003

0

-0

2

-1

2

-1

4

-2

3

-3

1

2002

0

-0

0

-0

1

-3

1

-3

0

-4

1

 

Cumulative from 2007

2007

0

-0

2

-0

1

-2

3

-2

2

-3

1

2006

0

-0

3

-1

2

-3

5

-4

4

-5

1

2005

0

-1

3

-1

3

-3

6

-5

4.5

-6.5

1.5

2004

0

-1

4

-1

3

-4

7

-6

5.5

-7.5

1.5

2003

0

-1

6

-2

5

-5

11

-8

8.5

-10.5

2.5

2002

0

-1

6

-2

6

-8

12

-11

8.5

-14.5

3.5

 

0.0%

75.0%

42.9%

52.2%

37.0%

 

While the overall record is even, the SEC lower team has a nearly .500 (6-8 overall) posting its 2nd best results against the benchmark against the Big 12 Conference.

The 6 lower wins are from 4 different teams in the SEC West against 5 different teams in the Big 12, and are spread out over 5 of the 6 years.  The SEC teams varied from 2nd to 5th place, the Big 12 teams varied from 1st to 4th.  4 of the SEC lower wins were against a Big 12 team that finished 1 spot higher (Div 4 over a Division 3), the other 2 were against teams that finished 2 spots higher.

Given the above spread in finishes, ranking, and years, my conclusion is that the SEC West is playing a step up (1 conference position higher) against the Big 12.  (If SEC West teams were ranked 1 position higher, the benchmark is about even.)  This does not carry over to the rest of the SEC.  If someone has a better SUPPORTED idea, I will consider (I will even give you credit).

SEC-PAC 10

 

PAC by Year

 

Even

Higher

Lower

Total

Benchmark

vs.

 

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

BM

2007

0

-0

0

-1

0

-0

0

-1

1

-0

-1

2006

0

-0

2

-0

1

-1

3

-1

2

-2

1

2005

0

-0

1

-0

0

-1

1

-1

1

-1

0

2004

0

-0

1

-0

0

-0

1

-0

1

-0

0

2003

0

-0

1

-0

0

-2

1

-2

1

-2

0

2002

0

-0

0

-0

0

-2

0

-2

0

-2

0

 

Cumulative from 2007

2007

0

-0

0

-1

0

-0

0

-1

1

-0

-1

2006

0

-0

2

-1

1

-1

3

-2

3

-2

0

2005

0

-0

3

-1

1

-2

4

-3

4

-3

0

2004

0

-0

4

-1

1

-2

5

-3

5

-3

0

2003

0

-0

5

-1

1

-4

6

-5

6

-5

0

2002

0

-0

5

-1

1

-6

6

-7

6

-7

0

 

 

83.3%

14.3%

46.2%

46.2%

 

Tennessee vs. Cal account for the higher loss and lower win, otherwise the games have followed the rankings.  Most of the match ups have not been played by nearly equally ranked teams.

SEC-Big East

 

East by Year

 

Even

Higher

Lower

Total

Benchmark

vs.

 

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

BM

2007

0

-0

0

-1

1

-1

1

-2

1

-2

0

2006

0

-0

0

-0

0

-2

0

-2

0

-2

0

2005

0

-1

0

-0

0

-1

0

-2

0.5

-1.5

-0.5

2004

0

-0

0

-0

0

-1

0

-1

0

-1

0

2003

0

-0

0

-0

1

-1

1

-1

0

-2

1

2002

0

-0

3

-0

0

-3

3

-3

3

-3

0

 

Cumulative from 2007

2007

0

-0

0

-1

1

-1

1

-2

1

-2

0

2006

0

0

0

-1

1

-3

1

-4

1

-4

0

2005

0

-1

0

-1

1

-4

1

-6

1.5

-5.5

-0.5

2004

0

-1

0

-1

1

-5

1

-7

1.5

-6.5

-0.5

2003

0

-1

0

-1

2

-6

2

-8

1.5

-8.5

0.5

2002

0

-1

3

-1

2

-9

5

-11

4.5

-11.5

0.5

 

0.0%

75.0%

18.2%

31.3%

28.1%

 

Given a 50% change in conference membership from 2003 to 2005, I generally only comment on the Big East trend against other conferences from 2004 to present.  The sampling is low (7 games) but are spread across the rankings and approx. half the teams in both conferences.

From 2004 to 2007 (and earlier) the conferences have played even.  This isn't your big brother's Big East conference any more.

It is worth noting this is the best cumulative benchmark from 2004 to 2007 for the Big East, and the only major conference the Big East met or exceeded its bench mark in all 3 years.

SEC-Big 10

 

TEN by Year

 

Even

Higher

Lower

Total

Benchmark

vs.

 

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

BM

2007

1

-0

1

-0

0

-1

2

-1

1.5

-1.5

0.5

2006

1

-1

0

-1

0

-1

1

-3

2

-2

-1

2005

1

-1

0

-1

0

-0

1

-2

2

-1

-1

2004

1

-0

1

-1

0

-1

2

-2

2.5

-1.5

-0.5

2003

1

-0

2

-1

0

-0

3

-1

3.5

-0.5

-0.5

2002

0

-1

1

-1

1

-0

2

-2

2.5

-1.5

-0.5

 

Cumulative from 2007

2007

1

-0

1

-0

0

-1

2

-1

1.5

-1.5

0.5

2006

2

-1

1

-1

0

-2

3

-4

3.5

-3.5

-0.5

2005

3

-2

1

-2

0

-2

4

-6

5.5

-4.5

-1.5

2004

4

-2

2

-3

0

-3

6

-8

8

-6

-2

2003

5

-2

4

-4

0

-3

9

-9

11.5

-6.5

-2.5

2002

5

-3

5

-5

1

-3

11

-11

14

-8

-3

 

62.5%

50.0%

25.0%

50.0%

63.6%

 

             

With only 4 games in which the SEC team was lower, the results are about as expected.

The SEC has done well against the Big 10 when evenly matched, collecting 2 National Titles in the process.

Most notable is the number of higher losses.

The higher losses encompass 3 Big 10 teams that finished the equivalent of a Division 2 thru 5, and 4 SEC teams that finished the equivalent to a Conference 2nd thru Division 3rd.  If you include the even games, the Big 10 wins encompass 6 Big 10 teams against  7 SEC teams, ranging all the way from a conference 2nd to a Division last place.

The upset wins are spread out over 5 of the 6 years.  Against the benchmark, the SEC is +1/2 in 2007, with a negative individual and cumulative benchmark each of the other 5 years.

In terms of cumulative overall record, if you go back past 2007, you would have to go to 2003 for the SEC to be .500

It is not the case that the Big 10 is playing 1 conference spot higher against the SEC as was the case of SEC-Big 12.  As a conference the Big 10 is playing above the benchmark and their team's conference finish.

This reccord can be easily Summarized:

Against OSU, the SEC has looked awesome.

Against the rest of the Big 10, the SEC is .500 when evenly matched, struggles to achieve a .500 record when they are the higher team, an has performed about as expected when they are a lower team.

 (If you liked the Big 12 and ACC comparison, don't start crying now - I am just reporting the results of the field of play if you perform an apples to apples comparison.  If you have a better reason for the 5 higher losses, feel free to note it - if it hold up I will insert it and even give you credit.)

Benchmark by Year

 

Conference Total by Year

 

Even

Higher

Lower

Total

Benchmark

vs.

 

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

BM

2007

4

-0

5

-2

3

-7

12

-9

9

-12

3

2006

2

-1

6

-2

5

-6

13

-9

9.5

-12.5

3.5

2005

1

-3

4

-3

2

-2

7

-8

9

-6

-2

2004

2

-1

4

-1

1

-4

7

-6

6.5

-6.5

0.5

2003

1

-1

8

-3

4

-7

13

-11

12

-12

1

2002

1

-1

6

-1

2

-13

9

-15

8

-16

1

 

Conference Cumulative from 2007

2007

4

-0

5

-2

3

-7

12

-9

9

-12

3

2006

6

-1

11

-4

8

-13

25

-18

18.5

-24.5

6.5

2005

7

-4

15

-7

10

-15

32

-26

27.5

-30.5

4.5

2004

9

-5

19

-8

11

-19

39

-32

34

-37

5

2003

10

-6

27

-11

15

-26

52

-43

46

-49

6

2002

11

-7

33

-12

17

-39

61

-58

54

-65

7

 

61.1%

73.3%

30.4%

51.3%

45.4%

 

The SEC has achieved the highest benchmark against the other 6 conferences the last 2 years.  This record can be traced to the SEC-ACC record noted earlier.  Otherwise, if the ACC games in these 2 years are excluded, the SEC has finished approx. even, finishing from -2 to +1 in individual years, and from -1/2 to +1 in the cumulative total.

Benchmark by Conference Ranking

 

Even

Higher

Lower

Total

Benchmark

vs.

 

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

BM

1.1

4

-1

9

-0

0

-0

13

-1

11.5

-2.5

1.5

2.1

0

-0

5

-2

0

-2

5

-4

7

-2

-2

2

3

-5

7

-6

3

-3

13

-14

17

-10

-4

3

1

-0

6

-3

4

-10

11

-13

9.5

-14.5

1.5

4

1

-0

3

-1

5

-9

9

-10

4.5

-14.5

4.5

5

0

-0

3

-0

5

-6

8

-6

3

-11

5

6

2

-1

0

-0

0

-9

2

-10

1.5

-10.5

0.5

Benefiting from 3 National Titles, the SEC has performed notably well as the conference champion.  A high benchmark is uncommon for the conference champion - if you are already ranked 1, you aren't going to pick up any lower wins to boost your benchmark.

When tracked back to the games, the high number of lower wins by the division 4th and 5th place teams can be attributed to the SECs success against the ACC and Big 12.  About half of the higher losses of the SEC conference 2nd, division 2nd, and division 3rd place teams can be tracked to their record against the Big 10, the remainder are scattered.

Benchmark by Team

average

Even

Higher

Lower

Total

Benchmark

vs.

rank-team

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

BM

2

Georgia

2

-1

10

-0

2

-0

14

-1

11.5

-3.5

2.5

2

LSU

2

-0

6

-0

0

-3

8

-3

7

-4

1

2

Auburn

2

-0

5

-4

2

-2

9

-6

10

-5

-1

2

Tenn

0

-2

4

-1

2

-2

6

-5

6

-5

0

3

Florida

2

-1

2

-1

2

-6

6

-8

4.5

-9.5

1.5

3

Arkansas

0

-0

0

-2

2

-4

2

-6

2

-6

0

4

Alabama

0

-0

1

-2

2

-3

3

-5

3

-5

0

4

SC

1

-2

0

-1

2

-4

3

-7

2.5

-7.5

0.5

5

Miss

0

-0

1

-1

1

-4

2

-5

2

-5

0

5

Kentucky

1

-1

3

-0

2

-2

6

-3

4

-5

2

6

Miss St

0

-0

0

-0

0

-4

0

-4

0

-4

0

6

Vandy

1

-0

1

-0

0

-5

2

-5

1.5

-5.5

0.5

Notable is Georgia's record.  Mandel was wrong in his reason UGa doesn't get more notoriety nationwide when he accredited their relatively new presence.

Of the 15 games against the other major 6 conferences, 10 came against the ACC.  2 were against teams that finished 5th in the Big 12.  2 were quality wins against the big 10 (the equivalent to a division 2nd place), 1 was a quality loss against the Big east.

With only 5 games over 6 years against teams outside the southeast (2 against teams that finished in the lower 1/3 of their conference), and 1 of those a highly viewed loss, they aren't going to attract the attention of fans and sportswriters throughout the rest of the country.

The rest of the conference performed typical.  Just as it is uncommon for a team that averages near the top to finish with a positive record against the benchmark, it is uncommon for a lower team to finish with a negative benchmark since it is rare they will play a team that finished lower in another conference.

A look inside the SEC - Average Ranking

1/3 of the SEC averages finishing in the top 1/3 of the conference.  These teams finish in the top half of the SEC 88% of the time.

1/3 of the SEC averages finishing in the bottom 1/3 of the conference.  These teams finish in the bottom half 92% of the time.

The remaining 4 teams finish from 2nd thru 5th in their division 88% of the time.

3 of the 4 teams that average finishing in the lower 1/3 of the conference have a combined record of 4-14 with a benchmark record of +.5 (Kentucky being a very notable exception).

While the performance of the lower teams does seem to be improving inside the conference, claims that the SEC is strong from top to bottom is not found in either their overall record or their benchmark, nor is it reflected in their average conference standing.  The performance of the lower SEC teams isn't bad, but rather typical in comparison to the lower teams of other conferences.

Sampling

The SEC is averaging 9.9 games per team against the other 6 major conferences, 4th among the major conferences, approx. 1 game below the average of 10.8

Discrepancy With Common Opinions

Why the deviation from common opinion?  There are several, but y'all need to get back to work now, so I will wait to list them at the end of my next blog where I will take a look at the Big East (I need something to fill a blog on a conference that for all practical purposes is only 3 years old).

 

Friendly Reminder

This is a Prove It blog, not a bastion of free speech.  As a courtesy to my 6 readers, leave an idiot comment and I will zap it or trash you with facts as the mood hits - either way, at best you're wasting your time, at worse you are stepping on an uneven field.

 

Thanks for reading.

 

Calculations

If you discover a discrepancy, please let me know.  I did some checks, but it was still a lot of typing.

I will attach the games used to generate these calculations, but because of space they will have to wait until later blogs.

 

If you don't care about the numbers, get back to ork already.

 

Ranking Comparison

Here is a table of how I ranked the teams when compared to a conference with a different total.  The number after the decimal is just an aid I used for error checking and was not allowed to effect the calculations.

When comparing a conference 2nd to a division 2nd, the conference 2nd ranking was changed to 1, otherwise conference 1st and 2nd was maintained across all conferences and sizes.

To balance this, I also maintained the lowest 2 as equal to a division 2nd.

Where determining which spots to skip wasn't evident (such as whether to skip the 5th or 6th spot when comparing a conference with 9 teams against a conference with 10) the performance of the 2 teams above and below the split were checked, and the spot to skip was determined by which would make the team performance in keeping with the spots above an below.

If there is an area that is debatable, this would be it.  The reality is, whether I skiped 1 slot higher or lower made virtually no difference as it would only effect the benchmark if the teams were evenly matched or the opponent was 1 slot higher, and even then no more than ½ a game vs. the benchmark.

Div vs.

11

10

9

8

7

11 vs.

10

9

8

7

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

1.1

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.1

2.1

2

2

2

 

2

2

3.1

3.1

3.1

 

 

2

2

 

2

 

 

4.1

4.1

 

4.1

4.1

3

3

3

3

3

3

5.1

5.1

5.1

5.1

 

3

 

3

3

 

 

6.1

 

6.1

 

6.1

4

4

4

 

4

4

7.1

7.1

7.1

7.1

 

4

4

4

4

 

 

8.1

8.1

 

8.1

8.1

5

5

 

5

5

5

9.1

9.1

9.1

 

 

5

5

5

 

 

 

10.1

10.1

10.1

10.1

10.1

6

6

6

6

6

6

11.1

11.1

11.1

11.1

11.1

6

6

6

6

6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 vs.

9

8

7

9 vs.

8

7

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.9

1.9

1.9

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.0

2.9

2.9

2.9

3.0

3.0

 

 

3.9

3.9

 

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.9

4.9

4.9

5.0

 

5.0

 

5.9

 

5.9

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.0

6.9

6.9

6.9

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.0

7.9

7.9

 

8.0

8.0

 

 

8.9

8.9

8.9

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.0

9.9

9.9

9.9

10.0

10.0

10,0

10.0

 

 

 

 

Conference Ranking - Tie Breakers

I used the standard tie breakers.  (Regardless of record, I always place the conference title game winner as #1, looser as #2.)

1. Heads up play

2. Record against common opponents

3. Hardest conference record

4. Overall record

This is why my rankings may differ from others published, which use the overall record as the 1st tie breaker.

I did employ 3 unique methods in my calculation.

1. If a higher tie breaker only partially resolved the tie, its results were still carried over to the lower tie breakers.  For example, if team A, B, and C were tied, and team A beat B but neither team played C, the later tie breakers were used to determine where to place team C, but team A was kept above team B.

2. If a later tie breaker was able to create a split, 1 team was separated and the higher tie breaker reapplied.  If the later tie breaker created a full split, the positive was kept and the higher tie breaker still reapplied.  For example, team A beat B beat C beat A.  Tie breaker #2 placed team C highest, then B, then A, the positive was applied (team C placed highest) and tie breaker #1 reapplied (A beat B).  This was done because the higher tie breaker is still considered a better measure.

3. When applying tie breaker #2 and #3, only 2 teams were compared at a time.  For example, I would compare the record of common opponents of A vs B, B vs C, then A vs C.  This was done because all 3 teams frequently had too few common opponents to compare all 3 simultaneously.

SEC 

2007

 

2006

 

2005

 

1.1

LSU

6-2

FL

7-1

Ga

6-2

2

Aub

5-3

Tenn

5-3

SC

5-3

3

Ark

4-4

Ky

4-4

Fl

5-3

4

MS

4-4

Ga

4-4

Vandy

3-5

5

Ala

4-4

SC

3-5

Tenn

3-5

6

Miss

0-8

Vandy

1-7

Ky

2-6

2.1

Tenn

6-2

Ark

7-1

LSU

7-1

2

Ga

6-2

Aub

6-2

Aub

7-1

3

FL

5-3

LSU

6-2

Ala

6-2

4

SC

3-5

Ala

2-6

Ark

2-7

5

Ky

3-5

Miss 

2-6

MS

1-7

6

Vandy

2-6

MS

1-7

Miss

1-7

2007 - Tie Breaker #2 Ark best, #1 reapplied Miss St def Bama

 SEC

2004

 

2003

 

2002

 

1.1

Aub

8-0

LSU

7-1

GA

7-1

2

LSU

6-2

Miss

7-1

FL

6-2

3

Ark

3-5

Aub

5-3

Tenn

5-3

4

Ala

3-5

Ark

4-4

SC

3-5

5

Miss

3-5

Ala

2-6

Ky

3-5

6

MS

2-6

MS

1-7

Vandy

0-8

2.1

Tenn

7-1

Ga

6-2

Ala

6-2

2

Ga

6-2

Tenn

6-2

Ark

5-3

3

Fl

4-4

FL

6-2

Aub

5-3

4

SC

4-4

SC

2-6

LSU

5-3

5

Ky

1-7

Vandy

1-7

Miss

3-5

6

Vandy

1-7

Ky

1-7

MS

0-8

 

B12

2007

 

2006

 

2005

 

1.1

Ok

6-2

Ok

7-1

Tex

8-0

2

Tex

5-3

Tex

6-2

TT

6-2

3

TT

4-4

TA&M

5-3

Ok

6-2

4

TA&M

4-4

TT

4-4

TA&M

3-5

5

OSU

4-4

OSU

3-5

Bay

2-6

6

Bay

0-8

Bay

3-5

OSU

1-7

2.1

Miss

7-1

Neb

6-2

Col

5-3

2

KS

7-1

Miss

4-4

Miss

4-4

3

Col

4-4

KSU

4-4

Neb

4-4

4

KSU

3-5

KS

3-5

IS

4-4

5

Neb

2-6

Col

2-6

KS

3-5

6

IS

2-6

IS

1-7

KSU

2-6

2007 - tie breaker #2 TT over OSU, reapplied #1 has TA&M beating OSU, loosing to TT

B12

2004

 

2003

 

2002

 

1.1

Ok

8-0

KSU

6-2

Ok

6-2

2

Tex

7-1

Neb

5-3

Tex

6-2

3

TA&M

5-3

Miss

4-4

TT

5-3

4

TT

5-3

Col

3-5

OSU

5-3

5

OSU

4-4

KS

3-5

TA&M

3-5

6

Bay

1-7

IS

0-8

Bay

1-7

2.1

Col

4-4

Ok

8-0

Col

7-1

2

IS

4-4

Tex

7-1

KSU

6-2

3

Neb

3-5

OSU

5-3

IS

4-4

4

Miss

3-5

TT

4-4

Neb

3-5

5

KS

2-6

TA&M

2-6

Miss

2-6

6

KSU

2-6

Bay

1-7

KS

0-8

 

ACC

2007

 

2006

 

2005

 

1.1

VT

7-1

WF

6-2

FSU

5-3

2

Va

6-2

BC

5-3

BC

5-3

3

GT

4-4

MD

5-3

Clem

4-4

4

NC

3-5

Clem

5-3

NC St

3-5

5

Miami

2-6

FSU

3-5

MD

3-5

6

Duke

0-8

NC St

2-6

WF

3-5

2.1

BC

6-2

GT

7-1

VT

7-1

2

Clem

5-3

VT

6-2

Miami

6-2

3

WF

5-3

Va

4-4

GT

5-3

4

FSU

4-4

Miami

3-5

NC

4-4

5

MD

3-5

NC

2-6

Va

3-5

6

NC St

3-5

Duke

0-8

Duke

0-8

2005 - TB #3 NC State had hardest conf schedule, #1 reappliede MD defeated WF

ACC

2004

 

ACC

2003

 

2002

 

1.1

VT

7-1

1.9

FSU

7-1

FSU

7-1

2.1

FSU

6-2

2.9

MD

6-2

Va

6-2

3.1

Miami

5-3

3.9

Clem

5-3

MD

6-2

4.1

Va

5-3

4.9

NC St

4-4

NC St

5-3

5.1

NC

5-3

5.9

Va

4-4

Clem

4-4

6.1

GT

4-4

6.9

GT

4-4

GT

4-4

7.1

Clem

4-4

7.9

WF

3-5

WF

3-5

8.1

NC St

3-5

8.9

Duke

2-6

NC 

1-7

9.1

MD

3-5

9.9

NC 

1-7

Duke

0-8

10.1

WF

1-7

 

 

 

 

 

11.1

Duke

1-7

 

 

 

 

 

2004 TB #2 Miami over NC, #1 reapplied VA lost to Miami, def NC

2003 TB #4 GT moved to bottom, #1 reapplied NC State def Va

PAC

2007

 

2006

 

2005

 

1.0

USC

7-2

USC

7-2

USC

8-0

2.0

Az St

7-2

Cal

7-2

Or

7-1

3.0

Or St

6-3

Or St

6-3

UCLA

6-2

4.0

UCLA

5-4

UCLA

5-4

Cal

4-4

5.0

Or

5-4

Or 

4-5

Stan

4-4

6.0

Az

4-5

Az St

4-5

Az St

4-4

7.0

Cal

3-6

Az

4-5

Or St

3-5

8.0

WSU

3-6

WSU

4-5

Az 

2-6

9.0

Stan

3-6

Wash 

3-6

WSU

1-7

10.0

Wash 

2-7

Stan

1-8

Wash 

1-7

2007 TB #4 cal on top, WSU defeated Stanford

PAC

2004

 

2003

 

2002

 

1.0

USC

8-0

USC

7-1

WSU

7-1

2.0

Cal

7-1

WSU

6-2

USC

7-1

3.0

Az St

5-3

Or

5-3

Az St

5-3

4.0

Or St

5-3

Cal

5-3

Cal

4-4

5.0

UCLA

4-4

UCLA

4-4

UCLA

4-4

6.0

Or

4-4

Wash 

4-4

Wash 

4-4

7.0

WSU

3-5

Or St

4-4

Or St

4-4

8.0

Az

2-6

Stan

2-6

Or

3-5

9.0

Stan

2-6

Az St

2-6

Stan

1-7

10.0

Wash 

0-8

Az

1-7

Az

1-7

 

east

2007

 

2006

 

2005

 

1.8

WVU

5-2

Louis

6-1

WVU

7-0

2.8

Conn

5-2

WVU

5-2

Louis

5-2

3.8

Cinci

4-3

Rut

5-2

Rut

4-3

4.8

USF

4-3

Cinci

4-3

Pitt

4-3

5.8

Louis

3-4

USF

4-3

USF

4-3

6.8

Rut

3-4

Pitt

2-5

Cinci

2-5

7.8

Pitt

3-4

Syr

1-6

Conn

2-5

8.8

Syr

1-6

Conn

1-6

Syr

0-7

2005 tb#4 Rutges best, #1 rapplied Pitt def USF

east

2003

 

2002

 

 

2004

 

1.8

Miami

6-1

Miami

7-0

1.8

Pitt

4-2

2.8

WVU

6-1

WVU

6-1

2.8

Syr

4-2

3.8

Pitts

5-2

Pitt

5-2

3.8

BC

4-2

4.8

VT

4-3

VT

3-4

5.8

WVU

4-2

5.8

BC

3-4

BC

3-4

6.9

Conn

3-3

6.8

Rut

2-5

Temple

2-5

7.8

Rut

1-5

7.8

Syr

2-5

Syr

2-5

8.8

Temple

1-5

8.8

Temple

0-7

Rut

0-7

 

 

 

 

ten

2007

 

2006

 

2005

 

1.1

OSU

7-1

OSU

8-0

PSU

7-1

2.1

Mich

6-2

Mich

7-1

OSU

7-1

3.1

Illini

6-2

Wisc

7-1

Mich

5-3

4.1

Wisc

5-3

PSU

5-3

NW

5-3

5.1

PSU

4-4

Pur

5-3

Iowa

5-3

6.1

Iowa

4-4

Minn

3-5

Wisc

5-3

7.1

NW

3-5

Indi

3-5

Minn

4-4

8.1

MSU

3-5

NW

2-6

Pur

3-5

9.1

Indi

3-5

Iowa

2-6

MSU

2-6

10.1

Pur

3-5

Illini

1-7

Indi

1-7

11.1

Minn

0-8

MSU

1-7

Illini

0-8

 

ten

2004

 

2003

 

2002

 

1.1

Mich

7-1

Mich

7-1

OSU

8-0

2.1

Iowa

7-1

OSU

6-2

Iowa

8-0

3.1

Wisc

6-2

Pur

6-2

Mich

6-2

4.1

NW

5-3

Minn

6-2

PSU

5-3

5.1

Pur

4-4

MSU

5-3

Illini

4-4

6.1

OSU

4-4

Iowa

5-3

Pur

4-4

7.1

MSU

4-4

NW

4-4

Minn

3-5

8.1

Minn

3-5

Wisc

4-4

Wisc

2-6

9.1

PSU

2-6

PSU

1-7

MSU

2-6

10.1

Illini

1-7

Indi

1-7

NW

1-7

11.1

Indi

1-7

Illinois

0-8

Indi

1-7

2003 OSU def Purdue, #2 Minn worse against common opponents

 

 

Comment

Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.


Start Your Own Blog

Start Now

Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Kerr 'absolutely expects' Knicks offer
    Views
    1059
    Comments
    1095
  2. 2
    Bryant headed back to Germany
    Views
    4135
    Comments
    930
  3. 3
    Shakeup looms for White Sox
    Views
    5904
    Comments
    336
  4. 4
    Yankees, Mets, Red Sox among Hanrahan hopefuls
    Views
    717
    Comments
    167
  5. 5
    Lightning may be swept aside
    Views
    1317
    Comments
    100

SI.com

SI Photos