The real conference bowl records

[9and4]

When you take away games against Group of 5 schools, here are the real conference records for each conference (not including the Cactus Bowl):

SEC 7-2
Pac Twelve 3-3 (includes victory against BYU)
ACC 3-3
Big Ten 4-5 (includes victory against Notre Dame)
Big XII 2-4

The Pac-12 went 3-0 against Group of 5 schools.
The ACC went 1-2 against Group of 5 schools.
The Big Ten went 1-0 against a Group of 5 school.
The SEC went 1-0 against a Group of 5 school.
The Big XII will not play a game against a Group of 5 school.

In other words, there's the SEC and then the other four Power conferences, separated by very little. The Cactus Bowl result won't change that.

 

[Huskerlife39]

I believe you've got the wrong record for the BIG10 and what the hell is a group of 5 school?

 

[RedSea]

Group of 5 (American Athletic Conference, Conference-USA, Mid-American Conference, Sun Belt Conference, Mountain West Conference)

But why would you want to take out those games?

 

[RedSea]

Actually, the Cactus Bowl sort of matters, because if Big 12 loses, they go to 2-5 under your analysis, and become clearly worst of the power 5

 

[omnione]

But why would you want to take out those games?

Yeah, Power 5 schools conferences should get dinged if one of their teams loses to a mid-major. Seems like he's trying to compare the relative strength of the Power 5 conferences and feels that games against mid-majors cloud that comparison.

Problem is that bowl records from one season doesn't offer enough data to draw many conclusions. Matchups and motivation can really affect bowl outcomes.

 

[Tyante]

When you take away games against Group of 5 schools, here are the real conference records for each conference (not including the Cactus Bowl):

SEC 7-2
Pac Twelve 3-3 (includes victory against BYU)
ACC 3-3
Big Ten 4-5 (includes victory against Notre Dame)
Big XII 2-4

The Pac-12 went 3-0 against Group of 5 schools.
The ACC went 1-2 against Group of 5 schools.
The Big Ten went 1-0 against a Group of 5 school.
The SEC went 1-0 against a Group of 5 school.
The Big XII will not play a game against a Group of 5 school.

In other words, there's the SEC and then the other four Power conferences, separated by very little. The Cactus Bowl result won't change that.

So you are saying a team that was 8-3 overall and 5-3 in there conference vs a team that was 7-5 overall and 4-5 in their conference is a good test to see how strong a conference is. Or a team that was 9-3 overall and 5-3 in their conference vs a team that was 7-5 overall and 4-4 in their conference. There was also an 8-4 team (4-4) vs 7-5 team (3-5) and a 7-5 team (5-3) vs a 6-6 (3-6).

Some conferences have more favorable match-ups than others. This really isn't an apples to apples comparison that you are trying to make it out to be.

 

[9and4]

Yeah, Power 5 schools conferences should get dinged if one of their teams loses to a mid-major. Seems like he's trying to compare the relative strength of the Power 5 conferences and feels that games against mid-majors cloud that comparison.

Problem is that bowl records from one season doesn't offer enough data to draw many conclusions. Matchups and motivation can really affect bowl outcomes.

True, the ACC should be "dinged" because two of its members lost to American Athletic Conference teams, but should the Pac-12 be given the "second-best performance in bowls" label because it went 6-4, even though two of those victories were against Mountain West teams, a third was against a Conference USA team and a fourth against BYU?

It's not a perfect analysis. I guess I was just (only slightly) miffed that the Pac-12 might get more props than it should because it has so many match-ups against Group of 5 teams. As it turns out, ASU's loss in the Cactus Bowl really does muddle the middle in terms of understanding conference strength and gauging it on bowl results. In the end, there's still the SEC (particularly the West), with the other conferences bunched and behind.

Tyante makes a great point about match-ups. Some of this bowl-season dick measuring doesn't take into account specific games and teams. The Rose Bowl, for example, pitted the best team in the Pac-12 (by a substantial margin) against probably the fourth-best team in the Big Ten.

So there's that.

 

[littleton tiger]

In my opinion the conferences line up this way
1. SEC Best overall by a lot ( #2 closer to #3 than #1)
2. BIG 10 Very good top half especially OSU Michigan St and Michigan
3. Pac12 Pretty solid
4.Big12 Some elite-like teams at the top but horrible at the middle and bottom
5.ACC Clemson really good ,FSU and UNC decent the rest are AAC or MAC quality.

 

[jedimasterjed]

In my opinion the conferences line up this way
1. SEC Best overall by a lot ( #2 closer to #3 than #1)
2. BIG 10 Very good top half especially OSU Michigan St and Michigan
3. Pac12 Pretty solid
4.Big12 Some elite-like teams at the top but horrible at the middle and bottom
5.ACC Clemson really good ,FSU and UNC decent the rest are AAC or MAC quality.

BIG I think is clearly number 2, Ohio state stands alone at the top. The teams from 2 to 8 very little separates them.

 

[littleton tiger]

Don't disagree with your point as of now but I think UM with CJH can/will become an elite program very soon. MSU can be a contender as long as CMD is at the helm. In my opinion Nebraska is a head coach away from greatness and Wisconsin is a solid program.

 

[Mr.Scary13]

In my opinion the conferences line up this way
1. SEC Best overall by a lot ( #2 closer to #3 than #1)
2. BIG 10 Very good top half especially OSU Michigan St and Michigan
3. Pac12 Pretty solid
4.Big12 Some elite-like teams at the top but horrible at the middle and bottom
5.ACC Clemson really good ,FSU and UNC decent the rest are AAC or MAC quality.

What? The upper part of the Big got completely beat down in the bowls with the exception of OSU. Michigan got a pass by playing a team without its qb.

 

[SC_'sker]

What? The upper part of the Big got completely beat down in the bowls with the exception of OSU. Michigan got a pass by playing a team without its qb.

And that QB-less team that Michigan beat down was somehow good enough to win a division in your vaunted SEC. Roll Tide?

 

[Truehuskerfan]

And that QB-less team that Michigan beat down was somehow good enough to win a division in your vaunted SEC. Roll Tide?

Yes-the same team that Verne Lundquist and Gary Danielson on CBS during the waning moments of the Alabama-Auburn game were saying deserved to be in the playoff if they upset Alabama in the SEC Championship game. Granted, that was said before they lost to Florida State, but they never even mentioned the fact that they still had to play FSU-as if beating them was a foregone conclusion.

 

[littleton tiger]

My thoughts were more about where I thought the conferences stack up now relative to each other. As I sais #2 is closer to #3 than #1.

 

[Tyante]

Don't disagree with your point as of now but I think UM with CJH can/will become an elite program very soon. MSU can be a contender as long as CMD is at the helm. In my opinion Nebraska is a head coach away from greatness and Wisconsin is a solid program.

I'm interested to see how Wisconsin replaces their DC. I think a lot of their success this season is because he decided to stay with the coaching change.

 

[leodisflowers]

A lot of this comes down to matchups in my opinion. I don't disagree with the points being made, but the SEC always has a lot of favorable match-ups at bowl season. Alabama is far an away the best though.

 

[lookyzark]

It's all about match-ups. Last year the Big 10 was the underdog in all 10 games. The almighty SEC was heavily favored in every game. They didn't do so well.
Same thing this year. However, the SEC is showing quite well and other conferences are struggling.