Views
1594
Comments
0
Posted by:
Prove It
|

Also see:

Benchmark Conference Comparison Part 1 - SEC

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 Finale - Summary, Who's Best

Brief Overview

This is an apples to apples comparison between the major 6 conferences.  This is the best comparison format and most comprehensive you will find.  If this is your 1st time perusing this series, you will find a detailed description of terminology and how the comparison was made in Part 1 and Part 2 (link above).

In a nutshell, the conferences rankings were adjusted for different formats (for example, 3rd and 4th in the Big 10 was equated to a division 2nd place, etc.).

Then the games were compared based on how the teams ranked in their respective conferences, splitting the inter-conference games into 3 categories: Evenly matched, Higher conference finish than their opponent, and Lower conference finish than their opponent based on the adjusted conference rankings above.  This eliminates overstating mismatches such as a Division 2nd place team beating the next to last place in the conference.

Based on the number of games played in which the conference team was the even, higher, and the lower team a benchmark (expected) record was created.  The benchmark wins = ½ even games plus the higher games, benchmark losses = ½ the even games plus the lower games.

The results of the games were compared to the benchmark record by subtracting the benchmark wins from the actual wins.  A high positive number is a good performance; a low negative number is a bad performance.

Where there was a large deviation between the actual record and the benchmark record, an analysis was done to determine the most likely cause.  This analysis was carried out similar to the method used in process controls to determine the root cause of a failure.

The Benchmark by Year

 

Overall by year

Even

Higher

Lower

Total

Benchmark

vs.

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

BM

2007

0

-2

7

-3

0

-4

7

-9

11

-5

-4

2006

1

-4

5

-1

2

-4

8

-9

8.5

-8.5

-0.5

2005

3

-1

3

-4

2

-3

8

-8

9

-7

-1

2004

0

-1

6

-3

3

-5

9

-9

9.5

-8.5

-0.5

2003

0

-2

11

-1

4

-9

15

-12

13

-14

2

2002

3

-1

6

-4

4

-2

13

-7

12

-8

1

 

Cumulative to 2007

2007

0

-2

7

-3

0

-4

7

-9

11

-5

-4

2006

1

-6

12

-4

2

-8

15

-18

19.5

-13.5

-4.5

2005

4

-7

15

-8

4

-11

23

-26

28.5

-20.5

-5.5

2004

4

-8

21

-11

7

-16

32

-35

38

-29

-6

2003

4

-10

32

-12

11

-25

47

-47

51

-43

-4

2002

7

-11

38

-16

15

-27

60

-54

63

-51

-3

02-07

38.9%

70.4%

35.7%

43.8%

 

2007

0.0%

70.0%

0.0%

54.1%

02-06

43.8%

70.5%

39.5%

54.1%

2007 was a miserable down year for the Big 10.

In the 5 years prior the Big 10 played approx. even with the benchmark (+1) and slightly above the percentage average for all conferences - the outcome of 1 game below the average when evenly matched, just under 1 game above the average when higher, and just under 2 games above the average when lower.

In 2007 the Big 10 finished typical for the conference when the higher place team, but failed to win any game in even match ups or when they were the lower team.

The reason runs thru every team in the conference.

1. Wisconsin was expected to be in a 2 horse race for the conference title.  They got hit hard with injuries and suspensions.  Really hard.

2. Michigan was supposed to be the other horse.  It will be interesting 1 or 2 years from now when it comes out why they started the season so bad.  I suspect Carr was going light on his seniors in his last year as coach.  After the start, injuries crippled his star offensive players Henne and Hart.  By the time they reached the OSU Michigan game, they didn't look to have the intensity or will that the fans have come to expect in the rivalry.  In their bowl game they didn't show the discipline (net -4 turnovers) but at least showed the speed and skill.

3/4. OSU and PSU were young.  Very young.  OSU had half the starters FR or SO, and I think only 3 seniors.  PSU was similar, a real surprise considering JoPa's reputation for not starting underclassmen.

5. You can throw Illinois into the youth mix.  Most of Zook's talent was still young or on the pine from their top 20 recruiting classes in 07, top 30 class in 06.  (The classes were ranked in the 40s in 05 and 04, in the 30s in 03).

6. Iowa had among the youngest rosters in the country.

7/8/9/10. Michigan State, Indiana, and Minnesota had coaches in their 1st year, Northwestern had a head coach in his 2nd year following a rough start on short notice (replacing a head coach who died in July 2006).

11. Purdue was in the midst of a real rarity - a college football coach announcing plans to retire and an orderly change in guard.  Unfortunately they had suffered in recruiting for several years preceding the change.

Looking beyond the benchmark, the teams played well for a conference in transition.  In 5 games loosing by 2 to 6 points (21 points total) the Big 10 could have reversed their benchmark record to +1.  These close games included 3 teams that finished in the top 2 in their conference against Big 10 teams than finished 3rd, 4th, and 8th.

The outlook is optomistic.  1/3 of the teams youthful was bad for 2007, but with all showing early success it bodes well for the future.  Michigan State and Indiana have new coaches who can point towards improvements on the field, Minnesota can point towards a top recruiting class.  Wisconsin continues to be steady, Michigan can expect results early with RR receiving a stacked bench.

Big 10 vs. SEC

 

SEC by year

Even

Higher

Lower

Total

Benchmark

vs.

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

BM

2007

0

-1

1

-0

0

-1

1

-2

1.5

-1.5

-0.5

2006

1

-1

1

-0

1

-0

3

-1

2

-2

1

2005

1

-1

0

-0

1

-0

2

-1

1

-2

1

2004

0

-1

1

-0

1

-1

2

-2

1.5

-2.5

0.5

2003

0

-1

0

-0

1

-2

1

-3

0.5

-3.5

0.5

2002

1

-0

0

-1

1

-1

2

-2

1.5

-2.5

0.5

 

Total from 2007

2007

0

-1

1

-0

0

-1

1

-2

1.5

-1.5

-0.5

2006

1

-2

2

0

1

-1

4

-3

3.5

-3.5

0.5

2005

2

-3

2

0

2

-1

6

-4

4.5

-5.5

1.5

2004

2

-4

3

0

3

-2

8

-6

6

-8

2

2003

2

-5

3

0

4

-4

9

-9

6.5

-11.5

2.5

2002

3

-5

3

-1

5

-5

11

-11

8

-14

3

 

37.5%

75.0%

50.0%

50.0%

36.4%

 

Also see Part 1

With only 4 games in which the Big 10 team was higher, the results are about as expected with 1 loss to a teams that finished lower (in 2002).

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 lower wins.

The even and lower wins encompass 6 Big 10 teams that finished 3rd to 10th in the Big 10, and 6 SEC teams that finished from conference 2nd thru Division 6th.

The upset wins are spread out over 5 of the 6 years.  Against the benchmark, the Big 10 is -1/2 in 2007, with a positive 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 and 2002 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.

Put in its most basic terms,

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, and has performed about as expected when they are a lower team.

Ok - thru this, except for a jab against tSUN and Baylor, I have been well behaved, so here's my allotted jab: "Is Michigan, Penn State, Iowa, and Minnesota (combined 8-2, +2 benchmark) too fast for the SEC?"  Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

Big 10 vs. Big East

 

Big East by year

Even

Higher

Lower

Total

Benchmark

vs.

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

BM

2007

0

-0

3

-0

0

-0

3

-0

3

-0

0

2006

0

-1

2

-1

1

-1

3

-3

3.5

-2.5

-0.5

2005

0

-0

2

-0

1

-0

3

-0

2

-1

1

2004

0

-0

0

-1

1

-1

1

-2

1

-2

0

2003

0

-0

2

-0

1

-1

3

-1

2

-2

1

2002

1

-0

0

-0

1

-0

2

-0

0.5

-1.5

1.5

 

Cumulative to 2007

2007

0

-0

3

-0

0

-0

3

-0

3

-0

0

2006

0

-1

5

-1

1

-1

6

-3

6.5

-2.5

-0.5

2005

0

-1

7

-1

2

-1

9

-3

8.5

-3.5

0.5

2004

0

-1

7

-2

3

-2

10

-5

9.5

-5.5

0.5

2003

0

-1

9

-2

4

-3

13

-6

11.5

-7.5

1.5

2002

1

-1

9

-2

5

-3

15

-6

12

-9

3

 

50.0%

81.8%

62.5%

71.4%

57.1%

 

Also see Part 2

With a 50% change in conference membership from 2003 to 2005 I usually only evaluate the Big East in terms of progress since 2005, considering most of the earlier performance inconsequential.

As is the case with the Big East vs. most of the other conferences, they have played approx. even against the benchmark with most of the games between teams that were not particularly evenly matched.

This is not the Big East of the past.  Improvements in facilities and coaching necessary to attract better talent were under way before the conference shake up - they just needed another 2 years to manifest themselves in improved performance on the field.

Big 10 vs. PAC 10

 

PAC 10 by year

Even

Higher

Lower

Total

Benchmark

vs.

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

BM

2007

0

-0

2

-1

0

-1

2

-2

3

-1

-1

2006

0

-0

0

-0

0

-2

0

-2

0

-2

0

2005

0

-0

1

-1

0

-2

1

-3

2

-2

-1

2004

0

-0

1

-1

1

-3

2

-4

2

-4

0

2003

0

-1

3

-1

1

-3

4

-5

4.5

-4.5

-0.5

2002

1

-1

3

-0

0

-1

4

-2

4

-2

0

 

Cumulative to 2007

2007

0

-0

2

-1

0

-1

2

-2

3

-1

-1

2006

0

0

2

-1

0

-3

2

-4

3

-3

-1

2005

0

0

3

-2

0

-5

3

-7

5

-5

-2

2004

0

0

4

-3

1

-8

5

-11

7

-9

-2

2003

0

-1

7

-4

2

-11

9

-16

11.5

-13.5

-2.5

2002

1

-2

10

-4

2

-12

13

-18

15.5

-15.5

-2.5

 

33.3%

71.4%

14.3%

41.9%

50.0%

 

Also see Part 3

The Big 10 has performed about as expected when they are the higher ranked team or in even matches (the average for all conferences when even is 50%, 68.9% when higher, 31.1% when lower).

The Big 10 has performed poorly when the lower team.  Previously I had fun sticking it to tSUN for higher and even losses.  The lower end is a lot easier - most of the games were mismatches.  The Big 10 was, on average, 3.3 conference spots lower than their PAC 10 competitor, with half of the losses coming from teams that finished 3 to 7 ranks lower, 2 more against USC. USC or 1/3 or more of the way down the conference ranking is a tough wall to scale - take out these extreme mismatches and the Big 10 record is in line with the average for all conferences.  (Forget it, I am not doing an evaluation based on the difference other than higher or lower.)

Big 10 vs. ACC

 

ACC 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

-1

0

-2

1

-1

-1

2006

0

-1

0

-0

0

-0

0

-1

0.5

-0.5

-0.5

2005

2

-0

0

-1

0

-0

2

-1

2

-1

0

2004

0

-0

1

-0

0

-0

1

-0

1

-0

0

2003

0

-0

4

-0

0

-0

4

-0

4

-0

0

2002

0

-0

1

-1

1

-0

2

-1

2

-1

0

 

cumulative to 2007

2007

0

-0

0

-1

0

-1

0

-2

1

-1

-1

2006

0

-1

0

-1

0

-1

0

-3

1.5

-1.5

-1.5

2005

2

-1

0

-2

0

-1

2

-4

3.5

-2.5

-1.5

2004

2

-1

1

-2

0

-1

3

-4

4.5

-2.5

-1.5

2003

2

-1

5

-2

0

-1

7

-4

8.5

-2.5

-1.5

2002

2

-1

6

-3

1

-1

9

-5

10.5

-3.5

-1.5

 

66.7%

66.7%

50.0%

64.3%

75.0%

 

Also see Part 4

The Big 10 did not have the games scheduled to capitalize on the downfall of the ACC the last 2 years, though MSU came notably close in 2007 against ACC 2nd place team BC.

In a limited number of match ups, most as the higher team, the big 10 has done as expected overall, give/take a win/loss in each category.

Big 10 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

0

-1

1

-1

0

-1

1

-3

2.5

-1.5

-1.5

2006

0

-1

2

-0

0

-1

2

-2

2.5

-1.5

-0.5

2005

0

-0

0

-2

0

-1

0

-3

2

-1

-2

2004

0

-0

3

-1

0

-0

3

-1

4

0

-1

2003

0

-0

2

-0

1

-3

3

-3

2

-4

1

2002

0

-0

2

-2

1

-0

3

-2

4

-1

-1

 

Cumulative to 2007

2007

0

-1

1

-1

0

-1

1

-3

2.5

-1.5

-1.5

2006

0

-2

3

-1

0

-2

3

-5

5

-3

-2

2005

0

-2

3

-3

0

-3

3

-8

7

-4

-4

2004

0

-2

6

-4

0

-3

6

-9

11

-4

-5

2003

0

-2

8

-4

1

-6

9

-12

13

-8

-4

2002

0

-2

10

-6

2

-6

12

-14

17

-9

-5

 

0.0%

62.5%

25.0%

46.2%

65.4%

 

w/o2007

0.0%

64.3%

28.6%

50.0%

65.9%

 

Also see Part 5

This is a case when the benchmark can be misleading - with the Big 10 the higher or evenly matched in 18 of the 26 games played there was little opportunity for a high benchmark score (you generally need lower wins to gain on the benchmark).

In the Big 12 blog we tracked the source of the higher losses.

The Big 12's performance percentage wise is a better indicator and still good (though not as impressive) - when compared against the average for all conferences when even, higher, and the lower team the Big 10 is a game below average against the Big 12 when evenly matched, a game behind when the higher team, and about half a game below the average for all conferences when the lower team.

This is the conference the Big 10 is performing worse against.  Not a lot, but a few games back.

The Benchmark by Conference Ranking

rank

Even

Higher

Lower

Total

Benchmark

vs.

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

BM

1.1

3

-3

6

-2

0

-0

9

-5

11

-3

-2

2.1

0

-1

6

-3

1

-2

7

-6

10

-4

-3

3.1

1

-1

5

-1

1

-3

7

-5

7

-5

0

4.1

1

-0

3

-2

2

-3

6

-5

6

-6

0.5

5.1

0

-2

2

-2

1

-2

3

-6

5

-4

-2

6.1

1

-1

6

-2

2

-1

9

-4

9

-4

0

7.1

0

-0

2

-4

1

-0

3

-4

6

-1

-3

8.1

0

-0

4

-0

4

-2

8

-2

4

-6

4

9.1

0

-1

3

-0

0

-5

3

-6

4

-6

-1

10.1

1

-2

1

-0

0

-3

2

-5

3

-5

-1

11.1

0

-0

0

-0

3

-6

3

-6

0

-9

3

It is typical for the top teams to have a slightly lower benchmark score because they are unlikely to play higher teams.  The opposite holds true for the lower teams.

Here the numbers are scattered and no pattern could be determined.

The Benchmark by Team

average

Even

Higher

Lower

Total

Benchmark

vs.

rank-team

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

W

L

BM

2

Michigan

1

-1

3

-4

0

-1

4

-6

8

-2

-4

2

OSU

2

-2

8

-0

1

-1

11

-3

10

-4

1

5

Iowa

0

-2

7

-4

1

-1

8

-7

12

-3

-4

5

Wisc

1

-1

4

-0

5

-2

10

-3

5

-8

5

5

PSU

2

-0

5

-1

1

-3

8

-4

7

-5

1

6

Purdue

0

-1

4

-1

1

-2

5

-4

5.5

-3.5

-0.5

7

NW

0

-0

4

-2

0

-2

4

-4

6

-2

-2

7

Minn

0

-1

0

-1

3

-1

3

-3

1.5

-4.5

1.5

8

MSU

0

-0

2

-1

1

-3

3

-4

3

-4

0

8

Illinois

0

-1

1

-1

1

-8

2

-10

2.5

-9.5

-0.5

10

Indiana

1

-2

0

-1

1

-3

2

-6

2.5

-5.5

-0.5

Michigan has not done well when the higher team.  I have no idea why, and will refrain from any more tSUN cracks (hey - I did feed a compliment above).

Iowa can trace their benchmark score to their in state rival, Iowa State (they are 3-3 over the 6 year period investigated).

Wisconsin is incredible - 50% when even, 100% when higher, and an amazing 71% when the lower team.  I don't know what their secret is, but I wish they would share it (so why do I keep forgetting they're in the Big 10?)

Northwestern can trace their benchmark score to the balance of games where they were the higher and lower team which is about average for all the conferences.

Minnesota's performance was a surprise to me.

A surprise for a homer was OSUs record - all 3 losses came against the National Champion (what type of crappy team looses to the National Champion 3 times in route to a pedestrian 3-3 record against the major 6 conference champions over 6 years?).

The rest of the Big 10 has performed about even against the benchmark.

(Sorry, taking my homer hat off again...)

Sampling

The Big 10 averaged 10.4 games against the other major conferences, 3rd among the major 6 conferences behind the Big East and ACC.

As a side note, every team had at least 6 games (average at least 1 game per year) - a distinction shared only with the Big East.

A look inside the Big 10

No, that's not a typo - Michigan has finished on average a fraction higher that OSU (see - 2 cracks, 2 kudos - it all evens out).

Except for OSU finishing 6th in 2006, these teams have finished in the top 3 every year.

Iowa has finished in the top half of the conference 5 of the 6 years.

MSU has finished in the bottom half 5 of the 6 years.  Their new coach already looks to be improving this performance.

Indiana has had the worse woes, never finishing higher than 7th.  They look to have found the offense to improve - now thy need a defense to match.

Despite this, the Big 10 is a dynamic conference in both comparison to the other major 6 conferences and the fact the majority of the conference did not finish in the same half of the conference more than 4 of the 6 years.

 

Discrepancy With Common Opinions

Why the deviation from common opinion?  See Part 2 of the series.

 

Next I will milk this research for 1 more Part 7 summary blog in which I will summarize the specific differences in performance in inter-conference games between the major 6 conferences.

 

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

The individual games, rankings, and results for the Big 10 can be found listed below, the results of other inter-conferece games can be found in parts 1 thru 5.

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

7.1

4

NW

Lost

6

Duke

ACC

8.1

8.1

MSU

Lost

2.1

BC

ACC

9.1

5

Indiana

Lost

5

Oklahoma State

B12

6.1

4

Iowa

Lost

6

Iowa State

B12

5.1

3

PSU

Beat

4

Texas A & M

B12

3.1

3.1

Illinois

Lost

2.1

Missouri

B12

3.1

3.1

Illinois

Beat

11.1

Syracuse

East

6.1

6.1

Iowa

Beat

11.1

Syracuse

East

8.1

8.1

MSU

Beat

10.1

Pittsburgh

East

2.1

2.1

Michigan

Lost

5.1

Oregon

PAC

1.1

1.1

OSU

Beat

11.1

Washingon

PAC

4.1

4.1

Wisc

Beat

9.1

Wash St

PAC

3.1

3.1

Illinois

Lost

1.1

USC

PAC

1.1

1.1

OSU

Lost

1.1

LSU

SEC

2.1

1

Michigan

Beat

3

Florida

SEC

4.1

4.1

Wisc

Lost

2.1

Tennessee

SEC

2006

5.1

3

Purdue

Lost

3

Maryland

ACC

6.1

4

Minn

Lost

4

Texas Tech

B12

9.1

5

Iowa

Beat

6

Iowa State

B12

1.1

1

OSU

Beat

2

Texas

B12

9.1

5

Iowa

Lost

2

Texas

B12

10.1

10.1

Illinois

Lost

10.1

Syracuse

East

7.1

7.1

Indiana

Lost

11.1

Connecticut

East

9.1

9.1

Iowa

Beat

10.1

Syracuse

East

1.1

1.1

OSU

Beat

5.1

Cincinnati

East

10.1

10.1

Illinois

Lost

4.1

Rutgers

East

11.1

11.1

MSU

Beat

8.1

Pittsburgh

East

2.1

2.1

Michigan

Lost

1.1

USC

PAC

6.1

6.1

Minn

Lost

2.1

California

PAC

1.1

1.1

OSU

Lost

1.1

Florida

SEC

4.1

2

PSU

Beat

2

Tennessee

SEC

2.1

1

Michigan

Beat

6

Vanderbilt

SEC

3.1

3.1

Wisc

Beat

2.1

Arkansas

SEC

2005

1.1

1.1

PSU

Beat

1.1

Florida St

ACC

6.1

4

Wisc

Beat

4

N Carolina

ACC

7.1

4

Minn

Lost

5

Virginia

ACC

5.1

1

Iowa

Lost

4

Iowa State

B12

3.1

2

Michigan

Lost

3

Nebraska

B12

2.1

2.1

OSU

Lost

1.1

Texas

B12

1.1

1.1

PSU

Beat

8.1

Cincinnati

East

1.1

1.1

PSU

Beat

7.1

South Florida

East

11.1

11.1

Illinois

Beat

4.1

Rutgers

East

4.1

4.1

NW

Lost

7.1

Airzona St

PAC

8.1

8.1

Purdue

Beat

9.1

Arizona

PAC

11.1

11.1

Illinois

Lost

4.1

California

PAC

4.1

4.1

NW

Lost

3.1

UCLA

PAC

10.1

6

Indiana

Beat

6

Kentucky

SEC

5.1

3

Iowa

Lost

3

Florida

SEC

6.1

4

Wisc

Beat

2

Auburn

SEC

2004

6.1

6.1

OSU

Beat

8.1

NC State

ACC

2.1

1

Iowa

Beat

2

Iowa State

B12

1.1

1

Michigan

Lost

2

Texas

B12

4.1

2

NW

Beat

5

Kansas

B12

6.1

4

OSU

Beat

5

Oklahoma State

B12

7.1

7.1

MSU

Lost

10.1

Rutgers

East

9.1

9.1

PSU

Lost

4.1

BC

East

5.1

5.1

Purdue

Beat

2.1

Syracuse

East

2.1

2.1

Iowa

Lost

3.1

Arizona State

PAC

3.1

3.1

Wisc

Beat

9.1

Arizona 

PAC

10.1

10.1

Illinois

Lost

5.1

UCLA

PAC

11.1

11.1

Indiana

Beat

7.1

Oregon

PAC

4.1

4.1

NW

Lost

3.1

Arizona State

PAC

5.1

5.1

Purdue

Lost

3.1

Arizona State

PAC

3.1

2

Wisc

Lost

2

Georgia

SEC

2.1

1

Iowa

Beat

2

LSU

SEC

11.1

6

Indiana

Lost

5

Kentucky

SEC

8.1

5

Minn

Beat

4

Alabama

SEC

2003

7.1

7.1

NW

Beat

10.1

Duke

ACC

2.1

2.1

OSU

Beat

5.1

NC State

ACC

3.1

3.1

Purdue

Beat

9.1

Wake Forrest

ACC

8.1

8.1

Wisc

Beat

11.1

North Carolina

ACC

6.1

4

Iowa

Beat

6

Iowa State

B12

7.1

4

NW

Beat

5

Kansas

B12

11.1

6

Illinois

Lost

3

Missouri

B12

5.1

3

MSU

Lost

2

Nebraska

B12

2.1

2.1

OSU

Beat

1.1

Kansas St

B12

9.1

5

PSU

Lost

2

Nebraska

B12

5.1

5.1

MSU

Beat

8.1

Rutgers

East

9.1

9.1

PSU

Beat

11.1

Temple

East

9.1

9.1

PSU

Lost

7.1

BC

East

8.1

8.1

Wisc

Beat

2.1

West Va

East

1.1

1.1

Michigan

Lost

1.1

USC

PAC

6.1

6.1

Iowa

Beat

10.1

Arizona State

PAC

1.1

1.1

Michigan

Lost

3.1

Oregon

PAC

2.1

2.1

OSU

Beat

7.1

Washingon

PAC

3.1

3.1

Purdue

Beat

11.1

Arizona

PAC

11.1

11.1

Illinois

Lost

4.1

California

PAC

11.1

11.1

Illinois

Lost

5.1

UCLA

PAC

10.1

10.1

Indiana

Lost

7.1

Washingon

PAC

4.1

4.1

Minn

Beat

3.1

Oregon

PAC

10.1

6

Indiana

Lost

6

Kentucky

SEC

6.1

4

Iowa

Beat

3

Florida

SEC

3.1

3.1

Purdue

Lost

2.1

Georgia

SEC

8.1

5

Wisc

Lost

3

Auburn

SEC

2002

10.1

10.1

NW

Beat

11.1

Duke

ACC

6.1

6.1

Purdue

Lost

9.1

Wake Forrest

ACC

4.1

4.1

PSU

Beat

2.1

Virginia

ACC

5.1

3

Illinois

Lost

5

Missouri

B12

2.1

2.1

Iowa

Lost

3

Iowa State

B12

1.1

1.1

OSU

Beat

3

Texas Tech

B12

4.1

2

PSU

Beat

4

Nebraska

B12

8.1

8.1

Wisc

Beat

2.1

Colorado

B12

1.1

1.1

OSU

Beat

1.1

Miami

East

8.1

8.1

Wisc

Beat

2.1

West Va

East

2.1

2.1

Iowa

Lost

2.1

USC

PAC

1.1

1.1

OSU

Beat

1.1

Wash St

PAC

3.1

3.1

Michigan

Beat

7.1

Washingon

PAC

6.1

6.1

Purdue

Beat

7.1

Washingon

PAC

8.1

8.1

Wisc

Beat

11.1

Arizona

PAC

9.1

9.1

MSU

Lost

4.1

California

PAC

3.1

2

Michigan

Beat

2

Florida

SEC

4.1

2

PSU

Lost

3

Auburn

SEC

11.1

6

Indiana

Lost

5

Kentucky

SEC

7.1

4

Minn

Beat

2

Arkansas

SEC

 

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
    2219
    Comments
    1433
  2. 2
    No return timetable for Lightning MVP
    Views
    1552
    Comments
    219
  3. 3
    Yankees, Mets, Red Sox among Hanrahan hopefuls
    Views
    6060
    Comments
    172
  4. 4
    Tuukka Rask takes blame for Bruins' Game 1 loss
    Views
    610
    Comments
    78
  5. 5
    Niners table talks with Kaepernick
    Views
    1588
    Comments
    69

SI.com

SI Photos