Also see:
Benchmark Conference Comparison Part 1 - SEC
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
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 format and 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 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.
While it can't be considered a true benchmark without a further analysis of the difference in rankings, the conferences as a whole won an average of 68.7% when the higher team, 31.3% when lower.
Big East Benchmark By Year
Yearly Results
Even
Higher
Lower
Total
Benchmark
vs.
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
BM
2007
1
-3
5
-3
2
-4
8
-10
10
-8
-2
2006
3
-1
9
-1
2
-5
14
-7
12
-9
2
2005
1
-3
4
-3
0
-6
5
-12
9
-8
-4
2004
0
-1
5
-5
1
-5
6
-11
10.5
-6.5
-4.5
2003
2
-2
5
-5
0
-3
7
-10
12
-5
-5
2002
1
-4
6
-3
1
-3
8
-10
11.5
-6.5
-3.5
2007
1
-3
5
-3
2
-4
8
-10
10
-8
-2
2006
4
-4
14
-4
4
-9
22
-17
22
-17
0
2005
5
-7
18
-7
4
-15
27
-29
31
-25
-4
2004
5
-8
23
-12
5
-20
33
-40
41.5
-31.5
-8.5
2003
7
-10
28
-17
5
-23
40
-50
53.5
-36.5
-13.5
2002
8
-14
34
-20
6
-26
48
-60
65
-43
-17
36.4%
63.0%
18.8%
44.4%
60.2%
With half the conference membership changed from 2003 to 2005, a comparison of earlier records is not applicable.
The majority of the higher losses came before the conference shake up, the majority of the lower wins have come since the change in membership. Even in 2007 where they finished 2 games below the benchmark, they were as close as a total of 5 points in 2 games to evening the benchmark, and within 6 points of exceeding the benchmark.
This is opposite of what is typically seen in other conferences when the top teams falter due to injuries, suspensions, etc.
Before the conference membership changed drastically, the Big East was improving its coaching and facilities - both necessary to attract the recruits to become competitive.
Since 2005 the Big East teams have steadily improved. The improvement can be expected to continue following the pattern of improved recruiting since 2005. From year to year, no team recruiting class has dropped more than 0.1 stars compared to the previous years, while the average for the conference has improved 0.45 stars since 2004.
The 2004 ultimatum to improve or face elimination from the BCS was premature - the Big East needed 1 more year to see a return on their investment. With continued success in the BCS games, support for downgrading the Big East is not found in their game performance or record.
Benchmark By Team
average
even
higher
lower
total
benchmark
vs.
rank-team
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
BM
1
Miami
3
-1
3
-1
0
-0
6
-2
6
-2
0
2
WVU
3
-3
6
-4
0
-2
9
-9
13
-5
-4
3
Louisville
1
-1
7
-1
0
-0
8
-2
9
-1
-1
4
Pittsburgh
0
-1
2
-4
1
-2
3
-7
6.5
-3.5
-4
4
VT
0
-0
3
-1
1
-1
4
-2
4
-2
0
4
Cinci
0
-0
0
-0
1
-3
1
-3
0
-4
1
4
BC
0
-0
4
-2
0
-0
4
-2
6
-0
-2
5
USF
0
-3
2
0
1
-2
3
-5
3.5
-4.5
-1
6
Rutgers
0
-1
4
-2
1
-2
5
-5
6.5
-3.5
-2
6
Conn
0
-0
2
-2
1
-3
3
-5
4
-4
-1
7
Syracuse
1
-3
1
-3
0
-7
2
-13
6
-9
-4
7
Temple
0
-1
0
0
0
-4
0
-5
0.5
-4.5
-1
Only a team's record while a member of the Big East is considered.
While Miami was the power house of the conference, VT and BC and of course Temple did not perform particularly well against the benchmark when they were in the Big East.
Otherwise, these numbers can be considered irrelevant in evaluating the current conference since they include the years prior to 2005.
A Look Inside the Big East - Average Ranking
5 of the current members have finished in the conference top 2 while 4 have finished in the bottom 2. These totals do not change if you exclude the teams that left the conference. The time frame of only 3 years for some teams is insufficient to determine if the Big East will have dynamic rankings or become relatively predictable, but it appears to be headed towards dynamic.
Sampling
The Big East averaged 13.8 games per team against the other major conferences, the most of the major 6 conferences and well above the average of 10.8 games for all conferences. The average has increased the last 3 years to an average of 7 games per team (the equivalent of over 14 games per team if extrapolated to 6 years). Even if you eliminate 1 game (they only play 7 conference games), they still have the highest average. This is even more impressive when you consider they have a lower percentage of bowl tie-ins against the other major conferences.
When you look at the members of the major 6 conferences scheduling teams from the lower conferences, and note that in 2007 the lower conferences combined had only 1 win over the major 6 in bowl games, you have to tip your hat to the Big East for stepping up and scheduling the top conferences.
Big East vs. SEC
SEC total by year
Even
Higher
Lower
Total
Benchmark
vs.
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
BM
2007
0
-0
1
-1
1
-0
2
-1
2
-1
0
2006
0
-0
2
-0
0
-0
2
-0
2
0
0
2005
1
-0
1
-0
0
-0
2
-0
1.5
-0.5
0.5
2004
0
-0
1
-0
0
-0
1
-0
1
0
0
2003
0
-0
1
-1
0
-0
1
-1
2
0
-1
2002
0
-0
3
-0
0
-3
3
-3
3
-3
0
SEC cumulative to 2007
2007
0
-0
1
-1
1
-0
2
-1
2
-1
0
2006
0
-0
3
-1
1
-0
4
-1
4
-1
0
2005
1
-0
4
-1
1
-0
6
-1
5.5
-1.5
0.5
2004
1
-0
5
-1
1
-0
7
-1
6.5
-1.5
0.5
2003
1
-0
6
-2
1
-0
8
-2
8.5
-1.5
-0.5
2002
1
-0
9
-2
1
-3
11
-5
11.5
-4.5
-0.5
81.8%
25.0%
68.8%
71.9%
The SEC is the only conference the Big East has a positive cumulative benchmark against over the last 3 years, having met or exceeded the bench mark each year.
Approx. half the games have been relatively even (equal or 1 division spot different). As a whole, the conferences have played even.
Big East vs. ACC
ACC total by year
Even
Higher
Lower
Total
Benchmark
vs.
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
BM
2007
0
-1
4
-2
0
-1
4
-4
6.5
-1.5
-2.5
2006
2
-0
4
-0
1
-3
7
-3
5
-5
2
2005
0
-2
2
-1
0
-4
2
-7
4
-5
-2
2004
0
-1
3
-3
0
-5
3
-9
6.5
-5.5
-3.5
2003
2
-2
1
-3
0
-0
3
-5
6
-2
-3
2002
1
-2
0
-1
1
-0
2
-3
2.5
-2.5
-0.5
ACC cumulative to 2007
2007
0
-1
4
-2
0
-1
4
-4
6.5
-1.5
-2.5
2006
2
-1
8
-2
1
-4
11
-7
11.5
-6.5
-0.5
2005
2
-3
10
-3
1
-8
13
-14
15.5
-11.5
-2.5
2004
2
-4
13
-6
1
-13
16
-23
22
-17
-6
2003
4
-6
14
-9
1
-13
19
-28
28
-19
-9
2002
5
-8
14
-10
2
-13
21
-31
30.5
-21.5
-9.5
38.5%
58.3%
13.3%
40.4%
58.7%
Nearly half of the Big East inter-conference games over the last 3 years have been played against the ACC.
The ACC is both the Big East's best and worse individual year performance against the benchmark over the last 3 years, and accounts for most of the Big East's performance below the benchmark in 2005 and 2007.
Unlike the SEC (see Part 1), the Big East was not able to reap an advantage against the poor performance of the ACC over the last 2 years (notably FSU and Miami). This is a result of scheduling and not performance - with the exception of 2 even wins and 1 lower loss, the conference ranking favored the Big East or the Big East played teams that finished below FSU and Miami.
Both of the higher losses in 2007 can be traced to Connecticut upsetting USF, propelling Connecticut from 4th to second in the conference and leading to a negative benchmark for the year. Without this shuffle in rankings, the conferences would be approx. equal against the benchmark in 2007. The performance inside and outside the conference tend to indicate Connecticut was playing at a level closer to a 4th place team than a 2nd. When you consider this, the Big East would still be playing the ACC about equal even if Miami and FSU hadn't faltered.
Big East vs. Big 12
Big 12 by year
Even
Higher
Lower
Total
Benchmark
vs.
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
BM
2007
1
-0
0
-0
0
-0
1
0
0.5
-0.5
0.5
2006
0
-1
2
-0
0
-0
2
-1
2.5
-0.5
-0.5
2005
0
-1
0
-0
0
-0
0
-1
0.5
-0.5
-0.5
2004
0
-0
0
-1
0
-0
0
-1
1
-0
-1
2003
0
-0
2
-0
0
-0
2
0
2
-0
0
2002
0
-0
1
-1
0
-0
1
-1
2
-0
-1
Big 12 cumulative to 2007
2007
1
-0
0
-0
0
-0
1
0
0.5
-0.5
0.5
2006
1
-1
2
-0
0
-0
3
-1
3
-1
0
2005
1
-2
2
-0
0
-0
3
-2
3.5
-1.5
-0.5
2004
1
-2
2
-1
0
-0
3
-3
4.5
-1.5
-1.5
2003
1
-2
4
-1
0
-0
5
-3
6.5
-1.5
-1.5
2002
1
-2
5
-2
0
-0
6
-4
8.5
-1.5
-2.5
33.3%
71.4%
60.0%
85.0%
In 3 years the conferences have played 5 times and are about even against the benchmark.
Big East vs. PAC 10
PAC10 by year
Even
Higher
Lower
Total
Benchmark
vs.
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
BM
2007
0
-2
0
-0
1
-0
1
-2
1
-2
0
2006
0
-0
0
-0
0
-0
0
-0
0
-0
0
2005
0
-0
1
-1
0
-0
1
-1
2
-0
-1
2004
0
-0
0
-0
0
-0
0
-0
0
-0
0
2003
0
-0
0
-0
0
-1
0
-1
0
-1
0
2002
0
-1
2
-0
0
-0
2
-1
2.5
-0.5
-0.5
PAC10 cumulative to 2007
2007
0
-2
0
-0
1
-0
1
-2
1
-2
0
2006
0
-2
0
0
1
-0
1
-2
1
-2
0
2005
0
-2
1
-1
1
-0
2
-3
3
-2
-1
2004
0
-2
1
-1
1
-0
2
-3
3
-2
-1
2003
0
-2
1
-1
1
-1
2
-4
3
-3
-1
2002
0
-3
3
-1
1
-1
4
-5
5.5
-3.5
-1.5
0.0%
75.0%
50.0%
44.4%
61.1%
Again 5 games in 3 years - not much to say given the low sampling except that they are playing each other about even.
Big East vs. Big Ten
Big 10 by year
Even
Higher
Lower
Total
Benchmark
vs.
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
W
L
BM
2007
0
-0
0
-0
0
-3
0
-3
0
-3
0
2006
1
-0
1
-1
1
-2
3
-3
2.5
-3.5
0.5
2005
0
-0
0
-1
0
-2
0
-3
1
-2
-1
2004
0
-0
1
-1
1
-0
2
-1
2
-1
0
2003
0
-0
1
-1
0
-2
1
-3
2
-2
-1
2002
0
-1
0
-1
0
-0
0
-2
1.5
-0.5
-1.5
Big 10 accumulative from 2007
2007
0
-0
0
-0
0
-3
0
-3
0
-3
0
2006
1
-0
1
-1
1
-5
3
-6
2.5
-6.5
0.5
2005
1
-0
1
-2
1
-7
3
-9
3.5
-8.5
-0.5
2004
1
-0
2
-3
2
-7
5
-10
5.5
-9.5
-0.5
2003
1
-0
3
-4
2
-9
6
-13
7.5
-11.5
-1.5
2002
1
-1
3
-5
2
-9
6
-15
9
-12
-3
50.0%
37.5%
18.2%
28.6%
42.9%
The Big Ten has the 2nd highest number of inter conference games for the Big East over the last 3 years.
In 2007 the conferences met 3 times. All meetings involved the Big East lowest 2 teams - Syracuse, and Pittsburgh in their disappointing year.
In 2006 there was 6 meetings. There was a higher loss and lower win in games that should have been ranking mismatches.
In 2005 there was a higher loss in a game that should have been a mismatch. In the other 2 meetings, the teams weren't evenly matched.
The large difference in ranking in most games have kept the conferences playing approx. even against the benchmark over the last 3 years. Given the dynamics of the conference, scheduling even match ups against the Big East is a hit and miss proposition.
Discrepency with Common Opinion
While not as notable here as in Part 1 - SEC, the results of this apples to apples comparison frequently differs from common opinion. Below are the primary reason.
1. They are Sports Writers and Sportscasters, NOT Sports Journalists Their job isn't to research and investigate. If they are in a newspaper, their job is to write columns to attract readers to the newspaper. If they are on a radio TV commentary show, their job is to build an audience, not perform in depth analysis. If they are part of a network that broadcasts games, their job is to promote the teams their network shows.
They aren't likely to tell you that since the membership was shaken up, the Big East is about .500 against the other major conferences and even against the benchmark - they are going to tell you the Big East is an inferior conference to yours because that is what you want to hear.
ESPN isn't going to tell you that over the last 6 years, 7 of the 12 teams in the SEC have a loosing record against the other major conferences any more than they are going to tell you Mississippi, Mississippi State, and Vanderbilt are a combined 4-14 against the other conferences. They have spent a lot of money buying the rights to televise the games and are going to tell you the SEC is a tough conference, top to bottom.
Even if they don't have a particular interest, they aren't going to do an in depth study (ie-work), instead trying to land a high profile interview. Think about it next time you read a newspaper sports article - does it really read like something someone spent an 8 hour work day drafting?
2. Lack of Knowledge There are 65 teams in the major 6 conferences spread out across the country plus all the lesser conferences. In the vacuum of reliable information from the media, there is no way you will get the details without some investigation on your own.
You may know the Big 10 went 2-6 in the bowls in 2007, but you won't know these included lop sided match ups such as the 10th place team against the MAC West Champion, the 9th place team (helped along by the easiest schedule in the Big 10) against a team which tied for 3rd in their division in the Big 12, or the 8th place team against the 2nd place team from the ACC.
3. Lack of Games Even with the bowls, the teams from the major 6 conferences average about 1.6 games per year against the other major conferences (and many of those are bowl games). You simply don't see enough games to make a good comparison.
4. History Bias You've spent years forming an opinion of the different teams and conferences. When the tide shifts you will likely be behind the times. Just look at the above - how many people were aware the Big East had done so well the last 3 years?
5. Conference Bias You will naturally have a higher opinion of the teams from your conference and the conferences you frequently play than you will of teams and conferences you rarely see. We are all inherently homers.
6. Your Judgement is Based on a Few Games Even if you know the SEC has spent most of the last 6 years with a .500 or less record against the Big 10, you probably didn't know that most of that record was compiled by Big 10 teams against teams that finished higher in the SEC. Instead, your judgement is based on a couple of National Championship games.
All I can add is, welcome back to reality.
In part 3 we will look at the PAC 10
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 and Games
Details of the calculation of conference ranking are at the bottom of Part 1
Below are the Big East games over the last 6 years.
If you find a mistake, please let me know. (with approx. 380 conference teams-years ranks and 670 games I suspect I made at least 1 mistake)
2007
conf
rank
team
rank
team
conf
6.8
5
Rutgers
lost
5
MD
ACC
2.8
2.1
Conn
beat
6
Duke
ACC
1.8
1.1
WVU
beat
5
MD
ACC
4.8
3
USF
beat
5
NC
ACC
5.8
4
Louisville
beat
6
NCState
ACC
2.8
1
Conn
lost
2
Virginia
ACC
2.8
2.1
Conn
lost
3
WF
ACC
7.8
6
Pittsburgh
lost
2
Virginia
ACC
1.8
1.1
WVU
beat
1.1
Ok
B12
8.8
10
Syracuse
lost
10
Washington
PAC
4.8
5
USF
lost
5
Oregon
PAC
3.8
4
Cinci
beat
3
OrSt
PAC
5.8
4
Louisville
lost
5
Ky
SEC
1.8
1.1
WVU
beat
4
Miss St
SEC
4.8
3
USF
beat
2
Auburn
SEC
8.8
11.1
Syracuse
lost
3.1
Illinois
TEN
8.8
11.1
Syracuse
lost
6.1
Iowa
TEN
7.8
10.1
Pittsburgh
lost
8.1
MSU
TEN
2006
2.8
2.1
WVU
beat
2.1
GT
ACC
1.8
1.1
Louisville
beat
1.1
WF
ACC
2.8
2.1
WVU
beat
3
MD
ACC
1.8
1.1
Louisville
beat
4
Miami
ACC
3.8
2
Rutgers
beat
5
NC
ACC
5.8
4
USF
beat
5
NC
ACC
6.8
5
Pittsburgh
beat
3
Virginia
ACC
4.8
3
Cinci
lost
2
VT
ACC
8.8
6
Conn
lost
1.1
WF
ACC
7.8
6
Syracuse
lost
1.1
WF
ACC
5.8
4
USF
lost
4
Kansas
B12
1.8
1.1
Louisville
beat
3
KSU
B12
3.8
2
Rutgers
beat
3
KSU
B12
1.8
1.1
Louisville
beat
3
Ky
SEC
2.8
2.1
WVU
beat
6
Miss St
SEC
7.8
10.1
Syracuse
beat
10.1
Illinois
TEN
3.8
4.1
Rutgers
beat
10.1
Illinois
TEN
6.8
8.1
Pittsburgh
lost
11.1
MSU
TEN
8.8
11.1
Conn
beat
7.1
Indiana
TEN
7.8
10.1
Syracuse
lost
9.1
Iowa
TEN
4.8
5.1
Cinci
lost
1.1
OSU
TEN
2005
5.8
4
USF
lost
4
NCState
ACC
2.8
2.1
Louisville
lost
2.1
VT
ACC
1.8
1.1
WVU
beat
5
MD
ACC
2.8
2.1
Louisville
beat
4
NC
ACC
1.8
1.1
WVU
lost
2.1
VT
ACC
8.8
6
Syracuse
lost
1.1
FSU
ACC
7.8
6
Conn
lost
3
GT
ACC
5.8
4
USF
lost
2
Miami
ACC
8.8
6
Syracuse
lost
5
Virginia
ACC
4.8
3
Pittsburgh
lost
3
Nebraska
B12
2.8
2.1
Louisville
beat
7
OrSt
PAC
3.8
4
Rutgers
lost
6
ASU
PAC
1.8
1.1
WVU
beat
1.1
Ga
SEC
2.8
2.1
Louisville
beat
6
Ky
SEC
3.8
4.1
Rutgers
lost
11.1
Illinois
TEN
6.8
8.1
Cinci
lost
1.1
PSU
TEN
5.8
7.1
USF
lost
1.1
PSU
TEN
2004
2.8
2.1
Syracuse
lost
2.1
FSU
ACC
6.8
8.1
Conn
beat
11.1
Duke
ACC
2.8
2.1
Syracuse
lost
6.1
GT
ACC
5.8
6.1
WVU
beat
9.1
MD
ACC
3.8
4.1
BC
beat
5.1
NC
ACC
2.8
2.1
Syracuse
lost
4.1
Virginia
ACC
3.8
4.1
BC
lost
10.1
WF
ACC
5.8
6.1
WVU
lost
2.1
FSU
ACC
6.8
8.1
Conn
lost
6.1
GT
ACC
8.8
11.1
Temple
lost
9.1
MD
ACC
8.8
11.1
Temple
lost
4.1
Virginia
ACC
6.8
6.1
WVU
lost
1.1
VT
ACC
1.8
1.1
Pittsburgh
lost
3
Nebraska
B12
7.8
5
Rutgers
beat
6
Vandy
SEC
3.8
4.1
BC
beat
9.1
PSU
TEN
2.8
2.1
Syracuse
lost
5.1
Purdue
TEN
7.8
10.1
Rutgers
beat
7.1
MSU
TEN
2003
1.8
1.9
Miami
beat
1.9
FSU
ACC
1.8
1.9
Miami
beat
1.9
FSU
ACC
2.8
2.9
WVU
lost
2.9
MD
ACC
2.8
2.9
WVU
lost
2.9
MD
ACC
7.8
8.9
Syracuse
beat
9.9
NC
ACC
3.8
3.9
Pittsburgh
lost
5.9
Virginia
ACC
1.8
1.9
VT
lost
5.9
Virginia
ACC
5.8
6.9
BC
lost
7.9
WF
ACC
3.8
2
Pittsburgh
beat
5
TA&M
B12
1.8
3
VT
beat
5
TA&M
B12
4.8
5
VT
lost
4
California
PAC
1.8
1.1
Miami
beat
3
Florida
SEC
1.8
1.1
Miami
lost
2
Tenn
SEC
5.8
7.1
BC
beat
9.1
PSU
TEN
2.8
2.1
WVU
lost
8.1
Wisc
TEN
6.8
8.1
Rutgers
lost
5.1
MSU
TEN
8.8
11.1
Temple
lost
9.1
PSU
TEN
2002
1.8
1.9
Miami
beat
1.9
FSU
ACC
7.8
8.9
Syracuse
lost
8.9
NC
ACC
2.8
2.9
WVU
lost
2.9
Virginia
ACC
2.8
2.9
WVU
lost
3.9
MD
ACC
1.8
4.9
VT
beat
2.9
Virginia
ACC
3.8
2
Pittsburgh
lost
5
TA&M
B12
1.8
3
VT
beat
5
TA&M
B12
5.8
6
BC
beat
9
Stanford
PAC
3.8
4
Pittsburgh
beat
7
OrSt
PAC
6.8
7
Temple
lost
7
OrSt
PAC
1.8
1.1
Miami
beat
2
Florida
SEC
1.8
1.1
VT
beat
4
LSU
SEC
1.8
1.1
Miami
beat
3
Tenn
SEC
7.8
6
Syracuse
lost
3
Auburn
SEC
6.8
5
Temple
lost
4
South Carolina
SEC
8.8
5
Rutgers
lost
3
Tenn
SEC
1.8
1.1
Miami
lost
1.1
OSU
TEN
2.8
2.1
WVU
lost
8.1
Wisc
TEN
Cheney Larschied
Ashley Allen
Sled Hockey
Heisman Moments: Closest Finishes
Comments (1) Add A Comment
keep crunching those numbas!
Anthony E-is out.
Easton , PA
Total Comments (5337)
Comment
Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.