4
Oct
2

Week 5: Lazy & Blind Rankings

by Griffin

A Simple Look

After writing my previous post about Oklahoma being ranked despite a very weak schedule, I got to thinking about what the other 1-A teams would look like if you ranked their schedules & results. Since I’m a huge fan of Ed over at The National Championship Issue, I thought I’d take a stab as some of my own team / conference rankings. ( BTW, you can find his Week 5 rankings here ). Thus the first version of the Blind Schedule Rankings were born.

These rankings are going to skew towards BCS teams. I’m trying to get a feel for what criteria AP voters would use. Since they usually skew towards BCS teams, this should be spot on.

Simple, Comprehensible and Full Of Holes

The rules are simple:

  1. I picked the simplest scale I could think of: 1-9
  2. Teams are given a point value for every game on their schedule thus far. The point system looks like this:
    Opp Team & Result Win Pts Loss Pts
    BCS – Road 9 -1
    BCS – Neutral 8 -2
    BCS – Home 7 -3
    Non-BCS – Road 6 -4
    Non-BCS – Neutral 5 -5
    Non-BCS – Home 4 -6
    1-AA – Road 3 -7
    1-AA – Neutral 2 -8
    1-AA – Home 1 -9

    So beating a BCS team on the road is worth 9 points, but losing to a 1-AA team at home docks you 9 points.

  3. To get a teams culmative score, you assign the correct value for the game and sum up all of the resulting values. So, for example, beating a BCS team on the road, but losing to a Non-BCS team at home would give you a total of 3 points.
  4. These are non-weighted scores, which is where the ‘Blind’ part comes in. This means the actual opponent doesn’t matter. So beating Duke on the road is the same as beating Florida on the road.

Now, I know that last one will cause a lot of people to complain. I am fully aware of how big of a hole this is. These are only meant to get a rough idea of the teams and who they’re playing. Sagarin adds weights in his rankings early on in the season, so all I’m doing is ignoring any artificial bias I could throw in for now. Later in the year, I may make a slightly more complex version of these rankings that include weights and connections, but I think this is good for now. I’ve always favored simplicity & comprehension over complex and opaque anyway.

Teams

Some interesting things below.

  1. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the SEC holds the top 3 slots. All 3 teams have at least 3 wins over BCS teams (LSU has 4), including quality road and neutral site wins.
  2. Cincinnati & Iowa should both be ranked higher than they are, given the teams they beaten and where they’ve beaten them.
  3. Despite tripping up with Washington, USC is in good position to make a run at the the BCS NCG.
  4. 2 teams in the top 10 are unranked in most, if not all, polls. Notre Dame & Stanford both have 3 wins over BCS teams, including a road win.
  5. TCU & Boise St. are both in the top 15, though TCU is just barely in. However, if at least two BCS teams win out, they’re be on the outside looking in.
Rank Conference Team Score
1 SEC LSU 38
2 SEC Alabama 32
3 SEC Auburn 31
4 Big 10 Iowa 30
5 Big East Cincinnati 29
6 Pac-10 USC 28
7 Big East South Florida 26
8 Pac-10 Stanford 26
9 Ind Notre Dame 26
10 ACC Virginia Tech 25
11 Big 10 Wisconsin 25
12 WAC Boise State 24
13 ACC Georgia Tech 23
14 Big 10 Ohio State 23
15 MWC TCU 23
16 ACC Miami 22
17 Big 12 Texas 21
18 Big East West Virginia 21
19 Big 10 Michigan 21
20 Big 10 Penn State 21
21 SEC Florida 21
22 SEC South Carolina 20
23 Big 12 Missouri 19
24 Big East Pittsburgh 19
25 Pac-10 Ore 19
26 Pac-10 UCLA 19
27 SEC Georgia 19
28 MAC Central Michigan 19
29 MWC BYU 19
30 WAC Idaho 19
31 ACC Boston College 18
32 Big 12 Kansas 18
33 CUSA Tulsa 18
34 Sun Belt Middle Tennessee 18
35 Big 10 Minnesota 16
36 MWC Utah 16
37 SEC Mississippi 15
38 MAC Toledo 15
39 Pac-10 Arizona 13
40 Pac-10 California 13
41 CUSA Houston 13
42 ACC Wake Forrest 11
43 Big 12 Nebraska 11
44 Big 12 Baylor 11
45 Big East UConn 11
46 Big East Rutgers 11
47 ACC North Carolina 10
48 Big 12 Texas A&M 10
49 Big 10 Northwestern 10
50 Pac-10 Oregon St 10
51 Ind Navy 10
52 CUSA East Carolina 9
53 Sun Belt La-Monroe 9
54 Big 10 Indiana 7
55 CUSA Southern Mississippi 7
56 MAC Ohio 7
57 MAC Northern IL 7
58 MWC Wyoming 7
59 Big 12 Kansas State 6
60 Big 12 Oklahoma State 6
61 Pac-10 Washington 6
62 MWC Air Force 6
63 MWC Colorado St 6
64 Sun Belt La-Laff 6
65 ACC North Carolina State 5
66 Big 12 Iowa State 5
67 SEC Kentucky 5
68 SEC Arkansas 5
69 CUSA SMU 5
70 Sun Belt Troy 5
71 Big 12 Texas Tech 4
72 CUSA Marshall 4
73 ACC Clemson 3
74 SEC Miss St 3
75 Big 10 Michigan State 2
76 CUSA Texas El-Paso 2
77 WAC Hawaii 2
78 Big East Syracuse 1
79 Pac-10 Arizona St 1
80 SEC Tennessee 1
81 CUSA UCF 1
82 ACC Florida State 0
83 SEC Vanderbilt 0
84 Ind Army 0
85 MAC Kent St 0
86 MAC Temple 0
87 WAC La Tech 0
88 Big 12 Oklahoma -1
89 MAC W. Michigan -1
90 ACC Maryland -2
91 CUSA UAB -3
92 MWC San Diego St. -4
93 WAC Nevada -4
94 Big 10 Illinois -5
95 CUSA Tulane -5
96 ACC Duke -6
97 MWC UNLV -6
98 Big 12 Colorado -7
99 Big East Louisville -7
100 MAC Akron -7
101 Sun Belt Arkansas St -7
102 Sun Belt North Texas -7
103 WAC Fresno State -7
104 WAC San Jose St -7
105 WAC Utah St. -8
106 Big 10 Purdue -9
107 WAC New Mexico St. -9
108 ACC Virginia -10
109 Pac-10 Wash St -10
110 CUSA Rice -11
111 MAC Buffalo -11
112 Sun Belt Florida International -12
113 MAC Bowling Green -13
114 MAC Eastern Michigan -14
115 Sun Belt FAU -14
116 CUSA Memphis -16
117 Sun Belt W. Kentucky -17
118 MAC Miami (OH) -18
119 MWC New Mexico -20
120 MAC Ball State -26

Conferences

Some surprises for me here:

  1. The Big 10 2nd and the Big 12 5th seemed reversed to me. I would have thought the opposite.
  2. Not surprisingly, the MWC top the non-BCS conferences, but surprisingly Conference USA comes in 2nd. Equally shocking is the MAC occupying the bottom rung, normally the spot for the Sun Belt. The MAC has 4 teams with a combined record of 1-18.
  3. The ACC looks to be just awful, but only slightly worse than the Big 12.
Rank Conference Score
1 SEC 190
2 Big 10 141
3 Pac-10 125
4 Big East 111
5 Big 12 103
6 ACC 99
7 MWC 47
8 CUSA 24
9 WAC 10
10 Sun Belt -19
11 MAC -42

Proceed to Throw Your Tomatoes

I know the above rankings are completely full of holes in several ways. However, it was easy to throw together and gave me a rough idea about the first quarter of the season. I will probably keep it up to date throughout the year, with some modifications. If I’ve made an error or you have some input, please let me know. I welcome any feedback.

4
Oct
0

Oklahoma, Big 12 and AP Poll

by Griffin

Walking Around The AP Poll

We’re fans of resume voting here at Three’s A Pattern. We tend to not pay a lot of attention returning starters, hunches or tradition when ranking teams within a college football season. Simply who have you played, who have you beat and who have you lost to. So while perusing the latest AP Poll, it’s hard not to notice that the biggest drop for a ranked team was Oklahoma:

Rank Team Record Points
19 Oklahoma 2-2 370

They dropped 11 spots from #8 to #19. That sounds like a large drop, but frankly, to us, it’s not enough. Based on this season, it’s difficult to see why they’re ranked at all. Take a look at Oklahomas record thus far:

Wins: Tulsa(H), Idaho State(H)

Losses: BYU(N), Miami(R)

Not a very impressive resume. Certainly not one strong enough to overcome a 2-2 record. Oklahoma fans will point out that the two losses are by one point each to ranked opponents and that Heisman winner Sam Bradford was injured for most of the year. However, their only wins are at home, over a mid-major program and a 1-AA team. They have played a single team from a BCS conference and lost to them in their only road game of the year. The other loss was to a quality BYU team at a neutral site.  It’s tough to justify a high ranking simply on the strength of who you lost to. Juxtapose this with Houston dropping from #12 to unranked, despite having a road win vs. Oklahoma State and a home win vs. Texas Tech.

Mediocrity Loves Company

However, Oklahoma isn’t the only suspect Big 12 team in the back half of the poll. Let’s take a look at the the teams ranked below Oklahoma (BCS teams in bold):

Rank Team Wins Losses
20 Mississippi Memphis(R), SE Louisiana(H), Vanderbilt(R) South Carolina(R)
21 Nebraska FAU(H), Ark St(H), Louisiana-Laf(H) Virginia Tech(R)
22 Georgia Tech Jacksonville St.(W), Clemson(H), UNC(H), Mississippi St(R) Miami(R)
23 South Florida Wofford(H), W. Kentucky(R), Charleston Southern(H), FSU(R), Syracuse(R) None
24 Missouri Illinois(N), Bowling Green(H), Furman(H), Nevada(R) None
25 South Carolina North Carolina St.(R), FAU(H), Mississippi(H), South Carolina St.(H) Georgia(R)

Two things jump out at me from the above:

  1. Not only does every team have a better record than Oklahoma, two are undefeated. The two undefeated teams have a combined 2 road wins and 1 neutral site win over another BCS team. This also doesn’t mention 5-0 Wisconsin or 4-1 Stanford, which can each claim a pair of wins over BCS opponents, but are unranked. There’s also 3-1 Notre Dame, which has 3 wins over BCS opponents.
  2. Oklahoma is not the only team getting an unusually large amount of AP love. Eagle eyed readers will note that #21 Nebraska has a resume similar to Oklahoma, with no road wins and no wins over BCS teams. Just like Oklahoma, it’s a little difficult to see how they’re ranked as high as they are, given their resume. Out of 6 ranked Big 12 teams, they’re the only two teams without a win vs. a BCS conference team.

The Hypeman Cometh

With 6 ranked teams in the top 25, the hype machine for the Big 12 is already starting to build. However, in addition to Oklahoma and Nebraska, the rest of the ranked Big 12 teams, with two exceptions, have feasted on a slate of cream puffs & home games. Except for Oklahoma State over Georgia(H) & Texas over Wyoming(R), it’s hard not to see a pattern of home wins over cream puffs or conference opponents. While a combined record of 20-4 for the ranked teams looks impressive, broken down it loses it’s luster. The ranked Big 12 teams are basically .500 away from home:

Home Away Neutral
17-1 2-2 1-1

Conclusion

As Mergz from Saurian Sagacity foretold , the Big 12 has built a early season rep as one of the two top conferences in the country. They’ve done this, primarily, by coasting through easy home games. Once conference play begins and they start knocking each other off, they’re rankings will remain artificially inflated. In an ideal world, the voters will follow the chain of logic to really look into a teams resume & performance based on their wins, not just ‘quality losses’. We don’t have a lot of faith in that. Instead, for this week, we’ll suggest that if voters want to only look at ‘quality losses’, then they should look at Norther Iowa, who only has a single loss to undefeated and 5-0 Iowa.

2
Oct
0

2009 Mumme Poll

by Griffin

Being new to the college football blogging scene doesn’t mean I am new to college football. And you can’t discuss college football without discussing the polls. I was too late to get into the BlogPoll, but not too late to get into the Mumme Poll. Started in 2008 by the authors of Get The Picture, it’s an attempt to rank teams in a non-baised way. Quote:

This is accomplished by means of conducting the voting in two very different ways from other football polls:

  1. The first vote does not take place until after the games of Week Six have been played. Voters are not asked to evaluate teams based on preseason expectations and are not expected to use those as a baseline from which to rank teams for the rest of the year.
  2. Rather than being required to rank twenty five D-1 teams in order of preference, Mumme Poll voters submit ballots of the top twelve teams in the country, without ranking (other than to designate the top five of those twelve, for use as a tiebreaker). The poll rankings are then compiled by means of approval voting; that is, the teams are ranked in the order of the total number of times they appear on voters’ ballots.

It should be a fun time. I’m going to be ranking teams according to a soon to be unveiled ranking system, so it should be interesting. Also, the poll is open to everyone, so register if you’re interested.

29
Sep
0

Did You Know: Pac-10 Edition

by Griffin

Some interesting tidbits about the Pac-10:

  • USC hasn’t lost a regular season game against a non-conference opponent since 2002. A string of 24 straight wins.
  • In the last 8 years ( including 4 games in 2009 ), USC has lost 2 non-conference games, by a total of 10 points. In the same period, they’ve lost 10 conference games by a total of 29 points. That means that the average margin of victory for USC opponents is 3.25 points.
  • Pete Carroll has lost to every team in the Pac-10 except for Arizona & Arizona State. He’s also 6-0 vs. the Big 10, beating 5 out of the 11 teams in the process.
  • No other Pac-10 coach besides Pete Carroll been to a BCS game with their current team. The only other coach with a BCS game appearance is Rick Neuheisel, with Washington in the 2000 Rose Bowl.
  • The last Non-USC, Pac-10 BCS win was the 2001 Rose Bowl by Oregon.
  • Jeff Tedford is tied for the 2nd longest tenure of a BCS coach without appearing in a BCS bowl. Only Mike Leech (TT), Al Groh (UVA), Greg Schiano (Rutgers) and Gary Pinkel (Missouri) have been at a BCS school longer without appearing in a BCS bowl. All were hired in 2001. Tedford was hired in 2002. We’ve previously covered Californias only shot.

    Jim Leavitt has been at South Florida 12 years, but they have only been a BCS school since 2005.

31
Aug
0

Big 10 Expansion: Conclusion

by Griffin

Table Of Contents

Part 0: Intro
Part 1: OSU & UM
Part 2: Available Mid-Major Programs
Part 3: No Suitable BCS Teams
Conclusion: Just Win Baby

Conclusion

We were prepared to write about the Big 10 and its expansion plans not really helping the national perception like the proponents would want it to. Fortunately ( or unfortunately ) for us, Pat Forde has tackled the subject in his column on ESPN. Contrary to fans of the Big 10, there really isn’t a bias against the Big 10 from a voter perspective. Case in point, the Big 10 has placed a second team in the BCS 5 out of the last 6 years. The problem lies with the Big 10 teams once they get to the big games. Look at these numbers:

  • The last two appearances by a Big 10 team in the BCS National Championship game have been decided by a total of 41 points.
  • The Big 10 has lost their last 5 Rose Bowl games by an average of 15.6 points. Only one game (’04 Rose Bowl ) had a margin of victory less than 2 TDs.
  • In the last 6 years, the Big 10 has gone 3-8 in BCS games. The average margin of victory for their opponents in those 8 losses? 15.25 points. Their margin of victory in the 3 wins? 8 points.

Pretty sad numbers on the national stage. It’s these results that have fueled the perception that the Big 10 is a fading conference. That won’t change with the addition of a 12th team and a conference championship game. It will only change if/when the Big 10 starts winning those games.

26
Aug
0

Reason The Big 10 Can’t Expand #3: No Suitable BCS Teams

by Griffin

Table Of Contents

Part 0: Intro
Part 1: OSU & UM
Part 2: Available Mid-Major Programs
Part 3: No Suitable BCS Teams
Conclusion: Just Win Baby

Big 10 Expansion

Previously, we talked about the calls to expand the Big 10. In the next several posts, we’ll be going through the reasons the Big 10 can’t really expand. In Part 2 we talked about how the Big 10 can’t expand by pulling up a Mid-Major. Today, we’ll look at the possibility of adding an existing BCS team to the conference. Geographically, there are two possibilities for finding a suitable BCS team, the Big East conference and the Big 12 North Division.

Possible BCS Teams: Big East

The Big East already has 2 teams in current Big 10 states ( Cincinnati and Pittsburgh ) and two, Louisville & West Virginia, that are extremely close to the other Big 10 schools. The other Big East teams are too far away to consider adding. Adding one of those 4 would have the same pros as adding a MAC team. Namely, the low impact on teams travel and the existing relationship to local high schools for recruiting. Also, out of the 4 schools, 2 have been fairly consistent on the national stage ( Pittsburgh and West Virginia ). The other two are new to the national scene, having been added from Conference USA when 3 Big East teams moved to the ACC in 2004. These 4 teams would all be solid additions to the Big 10 conference.

Going over the Big 10 vs. Big East record since 1998, we can see that it is a bit better than the MACs record. The Big 10 is 22-11 vs. the Big East during that time, 11-4 since 2005 season. However, a 0.266% winning percentage is only slightly better than the MAC. This is not encouraging especially since the Big East has more resources than the MAC and has the added benefit of annual BCS exposure.

Now, as we did with the MAC, let’s turn to stadium capacity and attendance. For those 4 teams, we can see that the average capacity their stadiums is 50,512. Compared to the Big 10′s 74,143, it’s much higher than the MACs 29,864, but it’s still almost 50% less than the Big 10. Their average 2008 attendance is also 44,770, 25,000 less than the Big 10, but much, much higher than the MAC teams average attendance.

Attractiveness Of Joining The Big 10

While these 4 teams from the Big East seem like a good fit, the bigger issue is would they jump from the Big East into the Big 10? Let’s take a look at one possible alignment of the new Big 10 ( With OSU and UM in different divisions ):

  • North
    • Michigan
    • Michigan State
    • Minnesota
    • Wisconsin
    • Northwestern
    • Iowa
  • South
    • Ohio State
    • Penn State
    • Illinois
    • Indiana
    • Purdue

The above is just one possible alignment. Regardless which direction the Big 10 officials would take, it’s hard not to argue that Michigan and Ohio State are, historically, the top teams in the Big 10. There’s also solid teams in Penn State, Iowa, Purdue, Illinois and Wisconsin. In fact, since 2000, 7 out of the 11 big ten teams have won or shared the Big 10 title. To bring another team into the Big 10, you’d be asking them to compete against two consistent national powers ( OSU & UM ) and several consistently solid schools like Penn Status, Illinois and Iowa. This new school would either be in the same division as two national powers, one national power or a handful of 2-3 other solid, nationally relevant teams. Plus, you’d be asking a brand new team to compete against the history of the Big 10 on it’s own soil. That includes recruting relationships, fan bases and history. Certainly, that’s a big pill for an incoming school to swollow.

Compare this to the new Big East and you’ll see that 3 out of the 4 teams named above have won the Big East and a spot in a BCS bowl in the last 4 years. 2009 shapes up to be another year with no clear front runner for the Big East crown. This gives any of the teams ( except maybe Syracuse ) a realistic shot at a BCS bowl every year. Compared to the Big 10 and having to fight Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State among others, the Big East providers an easier route to not only the conference crown but a BCS Bowl. It’s unlikely that any of the Big East teams would be too thrilled with moving to the Big 10.

It’s doubtful that the Big East conference would allow another exodus for the second time this decade. In fact, The Big East coaches have recently began to campaign for adding a 9th member to the conference. All in all, adding a Big East seems doubtful and unlikely.

Possible BCS Teams: Big 12 North

There are two teams from the Big 12 North that make a natural fit for inclusion in the Big 10: Iowa State and Missouri. Iowa State is in an existing Big 10 state and already plays Iowa every year as one of their non-conference games. ISU is actually 3-4 vs. Iowa since 2002, so the series has remained competitive. Unfortunately, ISU isn’t exactly a high profile team. Nor is it a consistent winner, having won over 7 games only once ( 2000 ) in the last 30 years.

Missouri is an interesting and attractive option. They have played a yearly rivalry with Illinois, “The Arch Rivalry“, since 2002. However, reports are surfacing that this would be ending after the 2010 season. Missouri is also a good school academically and would fit in with other Big 10 schools in that regard. Using the above alignment, they would slide into the last slot in the Big 10 South division. Overall, Missouri would make a natural choice for addition to the Big 10.

However, the issues with adding Missouri are some of the same ones we’ve already echoed. Joining the Big 10 for Missouri, like one of the Big East teams mentioned above, would be difficult to justify. Right now, Missouri is in the Big 12 North, arguably the weaker of the two Big 12 divisions. While Kansas State and Nebraska have traditionally ruled that division, Missouri is coming off back to back titles and appearances in the Big 12 championship game. With their new coach and new spread offense, they are currently on the rise in terms of national stature. While the Big 12 South is quite an intimidating force, Missouri has an easier time reaching the championship game where it is right now than to have to face Ohio State every year for the division crown. They also have high profile in-conference games against Nebraska & Kansas State every year, and Texas & Oklahoma every few years. Winning any of those games instantly puts Missouri high in the rankings. In the end, it’s hard to imagine how joining the Big 10 helps Missouri and it’s easy to come up with a few ways it actually hurts them.

Wrapping it up

After ISU and Missouri, there’s no other BCS teams that make geographic sense to add to the Big 10. Any other solid, available team would either be too far away ( Boise State ) or wouldn’t improve the national stature of the Big 10 ( Temple or Western Kentucky ). Tomorrow we’ll circle back and see if the reasons the Big 10 wants to expend are valid or could even be solved through expansion.

24
Aug
0

Reason The Big 10 Can’t Expand #2: Available Mid-Major Programs

by Griffin

Table Of Contents

Part 0: Intro
Part 1: OSU & UM
Part 2: Available Mid-Major Programs
Part 3: No Suitable BCS Teams
Conclusion: Just Win Baby

Big 10 Expansion

Previously, we talked about the calls to expand the Big 10. In the next several posts, we’ll be going through the reasons the Big 10 can’t really expand.

Possible Targets For The Big 10

Ok, so let’s say the Big 10 officials have decided that the points in Part 1 are of no concern. The next major question is what team to bring into the conference. There are two possible routes to take:

  • Take a Mid-Major, Non-BCS team
  • Take an existing BCS conference team

We’ll look at the first option today and the second option tomorrow.

Note: We’re ignoring the possibility of Notre Dame here. It will never happen as long as they have their own TV contract and access to the BCS money. There’s simply no incentive for Notre Dame to join the Big 10. In fact, they’ve already turned down the Big 10 once before.

Take a Mid-Major, Non-BCS team

Since the Big 10 traditionally plays the Mid-Atlantic Conference ( MAC ) in it’s non-conference schedule, let’s start there. There are several pros to pulling up a MAC team. Geographically, it’s a natural fit. Out of the 13 MAC teams, 12 reside in a state with an existing Big 10 team.

The lone school from outside of an existing Big 10 state is Buffalo (New York).

Because of this proximity, these teams likely have an existing relationship with the local high schools. This would help in terms of recruiting. Road games also wouldn’t add much to the travel schedule of teams since they’re already places Big 10 schools go to now. Most, if not all, schools also have a good academic reputations. This would certainly fit the model of the other Big 10 schools.

However, there also are several cons. Since 1998, the Big 10 is 133-16 against teams from the MAC. While 7 of those MAC wins have come within the last 3 years, that’s still an abysmal 0.107% winning percentage against the Big 10. To be fair, that doesn’t mean that the trend would continue if a team moved from the MAC to the Big 10. If a MAC team is suddenly in the Big 10, it’s plausible to assume that the recruiting would rise up to match the rest of the teams and the playing field would begin to level after a few years. However, it would be a bumpy first few years. Competitively, it’s not far fetched to see one or more winless seasons for the new team. This would hardly increase the national respect for the Big 10 like expansion was supposed to.

A bigger issue would simply be one of stadium size. Big 10 stadiums average a capacity of 74,143. The MAC, on the other hand, has an average stadium capacity of 29,864

The average MAC stadium capacity is actually skewed a bit because Temple plays at Lincoln Financial Field (“The Linc”), where the Philadelphia Eagles play. That stadiums capacity is 68,532, more than double the next highest MAC stadium capacity. Removing that outlier drops the average capacity ~11% to 26,641.

The lowest capacity in the Big 10, Memorial Stadium, belongs to the Indiana Hoosiers, with a capacity of 47,130. On the flip side, the highest capacity by a stadium in the MAC (that’s not “The Linc”) is Kelly/Shorts stadium, home to Central Michigans and a capacity of 30,255.

Having an average capacity of roughly 1/3 of the Big 10 average would likely be a show-stopper. It would adversely limit the amount of revenue that home games could generate. If they were pulled up, a new MAC team would need to fund the development and construction of a new stadium. Don’t forget that with a new stadium comes new parking, roads and other infrastructure to handle the influx of traffic and crowds. No easy task given the economical climate and the possible losing that’s going to happen until the new team becomes competitive.

Unfortunately, without a new stadium, they would be unable to hold most Big 10 schools traveling fans, let alone their own. What will happen when 50,000 Ohio State fans show up for a game? Many Big 10 schools travel quite well, and even the ones that don’t regularly bring 20,000+ fans to their games.

When we turn our attention to actual attendance, the differences between the MAC and the Big 10 teams become even more obvious. The average Big 10 stadium attendance in 2008 was 70,514. The average MAC attendance was a paltry 16,888, a number almost 1/4 of the Big 10. This could turn “home” games into proverbial road games for the new team. It is possible to think that with its new status as Big 10 member, attendance and interest would rise. However, since most of the MAC teams are already from existing Big 10 states, some of which have two Big 10 schools already in state ( Michigan & Indiana ), it’s unlikely to think that fans have not already aligned themselves with an existing Big 10 school. This, combined with the likely initial losing seasons, doesn’t really provide an opportunity to jump from rooting for an existing Big 10 school and start rooting for the new team.

While we talk about the MAC above, these issues are hardly MAC specific. There are other Mid-Majors conferences in the country. However, none will have the few pros MAC teams do ( proximity and recruiting familiarity ) and all have the same cons with regard to stadium capacity and attendance that the MAC does.

Ok, so picking up a Mid-Major won’t work. What about an existing BCS conference team? Tomorrow, we’ll look at the possibility of assimilating an existing BCS team and the attractiveness of joining the Big 10.

24
Aug
0

Reason The Big 10 Can’t Expand #1: OSU & UM

by Griffin

Table Of Contents

Part 0: Intro
Part 1: OSU & UM
Part 2: Available Mid-Major Programs
Part 3: No Suitable BCS Teams
Conclusion: Just Win Baby

Big 10 Expansion

Previously, we talked about the calls to expand the Big 10. In the next several posts, we’ll be going through the reasons the Big 10 can’t really expand.

Ohio State vs. Michigan

The history of the Big 10 has been defined by one matchup: Ohio State vs. Michigan. Between the two schools, they have won 75 league titles, with 33 of those being outright titles.


To give you an indication of just how far ahead those two schools are, consider that Ohio State has 17 outright titles and Michigan has 16. That’s almost more outright titles than total Big 10 titles claimed by the #3 team, the University of Minnesota ( 18 titles & 7 outright ).

Even though the Big 10 has a rotating schedule, since 1935, the two schools play every year on the last regular season weekend for the Big 10 with 3 exceptions ( 1942, 1986, and 1998 ). While the teams had always been rivals, the rivlary was gained national attention with “The Ten-Year War” ( 1969 – 1978). The two schools, with Woody Hayes leading Ohio State and former Ohio State assistant Bo Schembechler leading Michigan, dominated the Big 10. They shared the conference title 6 times, with Ohio State winning it outright twice and Michigan once. Michigan also shared the title in 1978 with Michigan State. Since 1935, the annual game between the two schools has decided the Big 10 Championship an astounding 23 times. The game has had an influence on the conference championship an additional 24 times. Most recently, the 2006 meeting between the two schools pitted two 11-0 teams, ranked #1 & #2, against each other with a spot on the BCS National Title game on the line. In fact, as we alluded to earlier, even after the game there was some discussion of keeping both teams ranked #1 & #2 and making the BCS National Championship a rematch. Clearly, these are the two premier programs in the Big 10 by a wide margin.

As Ohio State and Michigan have risen in national prominence, the Big 10 has also benefited. The Ohio State vs. Michigan game has typically taken center stage nationally. With all eyes focused on the two teams and the Big 10 as a whole, the game has indirectly been seen as a barometer for the quality of football in the Big 10.

The Single Point Of Failure

However, this reliance the Ohio State vs. Michigan game also makes it one of the biggest obstacles in expanding the Big 10. If the Big 10 were to expand to two divisions, the conference officials would be faced with a difficult decision:

  • Put Ohio State and Michigan in different divisions – In order to avoid having one loaded division, the two most successful teams would be put in different divisions. This would balance out the conference, putting one team in each division. However, it wouldn’t guarantee that the two schools would meet every year. This would completely do away with one of the best rivalries in sports. Also, it would certainly be unacceptable to the fans of both schools.
  • Put Ohio State and Michigan in the same division – This would ensure the two teams meet every year. However, it would also dampen the significance of each meeting because the winner would, at best, win the division. The winner would still have to play another team for the conference crown. This wouldn’t be a huge deal except, as stated before, the two teams have dominted conference play. So the risk here is a uncompetitive conference championship game between Ohio State or Michigan and a less than dominate team from the other division. This has recently been the plight of the Big 12, with Texas and Oklahoma, of the Big 12 South, dominating the Big 12 North team they play in the Big 12 Championship game.
  • Put Ohio State and Michigan in different divisions, but designate each as the others “standing rival” – This is something that teams in the SEC do. Teams designate a permanent rival from the other division to play every year. This would ensure that Ohio State & Michigan meet ever year. Unfortunately, this would result in many of the same issues discussed above. This solution also adds another issue not present in the first either scenario above. With a “standing rivarly” and the teams in two divisions, it’s highly probably that the two teams will then meet twice a year, once in the regular season and once in the Big 10 Championship Game. This would likely dilute the rivalry game as potentially meaningless, given that there could be a rematch a few weeks later.

Splitting the conference would damage the single biggest rivalry in the Big 10. It would also upset the two fans of both schools, since the rivalry is so ingrained and meaningful. This isn’t to say that other conferences haven’t had to deal with the above issues. However, no other conference has had a rivalry of such magnitude and also representing such dominant teams in conference play.

What’s In It For Them?

Since the expansion of the conference would need to be backed by the relevant parties at each school, the other 9 teams in the conference would need to make a case that they would benefit from the expansion. Given that Ohio State and Michigan are two of the biggest and most successful teams nationally, one has to question what exactly they would gain from expanding the conference. From their point of view, it would be hard pressed to see how a Big 10 Championship Game would help either school. Right now, they have a relative monopoly on the conference title. If the two teams continue to play each year, they would then have another game against the champion of a rival division. This would also be after their big rivalry game and could result in a letdown loss. Overall, it would only make it more difficult for either team to win the conference crown.

Backed Into A Corner

The Big 10 has been defined and dominated by Ohio State and Michigan. Breaking up or altering that rivalry would potentially run the risk of disrupting a lot of Big 10 history as well as hurting one of the biggest draws the Big 10 has. From our point of view, this is clearly the biggest obstacle in moving forward with expanding the Big 10.

19
Aug
3

Big 10 Expansion

by Griffin

Table Of Contents

Part 0: Intro
Part 1: OSU & UM
Part 2: Available Mid-Major Programs
Part 3: No Suitable BCS Teams
Conclusion: Just Win Baby

Calls for Expansion

The expansion of the Big 10 has been a hot topic of discussion recently. At the Big 10 media day in the spring, Joe Paterno called for the adding of a 12th team. Other coaches made similar calls to add a 12th team. However, Big 10 commissioner Jim Delany was quick to dismiss the idea of expansion. This hasn’t stopped fans from proclaiming that the Big 10 should expand.

Reasons for Expansion

In 2006, Michigan was jumped by Florida for #2 in the 2006 BCS standings, earning a spot in the BCS title game. This was after the Florida Gators had beaten a ranked Arkansas team in the SEC title game. The outrage stemmed from the idea that since Big 10 stops playing several weeks before other conferences, they are at a disadvantage in terms of national attention and voter perception. Big 10 fans believe that their conference is behind other conferences that play longer, especially thouse with 12 teams and a championship game. In short, the Michigan and the Big 10 think they got screwed because they stopped playing before Florida.

Playing longer is not only believed to have an affect on the voters minds, but also the players bodies. Ohio State was blown out in two straight BCS championship game losses. The conference also has a poor bowl record in the recent years (1-6 in 2008, 3-5 in 2007 and 2-5 in 2006).  This postseason performance has given way to the opinion that the layoff for the Big 10 is a detrimental to the conference and also contributes to the idea that the Big 10 has fallen behind other conferences.

The expansion of the Big 10 and the introduction of a Big 10 championship game is believed to remedy this. Let’s take a look at what expansion is and why it is believed to help.

So what is expansion?

According to NCAA rules, teams can play a maximum of 12 regular season games.

Note: There is an allowance for Hawaii to have an extra regular season home game because of the travel incurred by Hawaii to play on the mainland. The can result also in a 13th game for their opponent.

However, conferences with 12 teams and two divisions can play a 13th game, pitting the winner of each division against each other. This is the conference championship game. The ACC, Big 12, Conference USA, MAC, and the SEC all have championship games. The Big East, Big Ten, MWC, Pac-10, Sun Belt, and WAC do not. Since the Big 10 currently has 11 teams, they would need to add a 12th team to be able to play a championship game.

How would this help?

There are two main reasons people want to expand the Big 10.

First, it would extend the season and provide the Big 10 with visibility that other conferences with championship games get. This is expected to remedy any perceived bias against Big 10 teams in the polls by voters of the coaches poll and harris poll. These two polls make up 2/3 of the BCS standings that determine the BCS Championship Game participants.

Second, the extended layoff between the final regular season game and a teams bowl game would be shorter for the Big 10. Since better teams typically get into the more popular bowls and those bowls are typically the last bowls to be held, teams participating in a championship game have a shorter layoff between games. This is expected to keep players in better condition and translate to a better showing in the bowl games.

What’s the holdup?

It’s actually not that easy to just add another team to a major conference. The last big conference expansion occurred in 2004 when the ACC raided the Big East for 3 of its teams. There are a host of issues and concerns that conferences have to take into account if they want to expand. The Big 10 is no exception. In the following days, we’ll go over some reasons why the Big 10 can’t expand, even if it’s administration and coaches wanted them to.

4
Aug
6

Did You Know: SEC Edition

by Griffin

While researching a future article about the SEC, I found some interesting tidbits about the conference:

  • Everyone knows the SEC has won 4 BCS titles in the last 6 years ( LSU: 2003 & 2007, Florida: 2006 & 2008 ). However, what’s rarely pointed out is the fact that both of the SEC teams beat the same two opponents for their titles. LSU beat Oklahoma in 2003 then Ohio State in 2007. Florida beat Ohio State in 2006 and Oklahoma in 2008. Both LSU and Florida beat OSU by 2 TDs or more and beat Oklahoma by 10 points or less.
  • Out of the current lineup of 12 SEC teams, all but 4 teams have had at least one undefeated season since 1936 (the start of the AP poll). The first 3 wouldn’t really surprise people. They are Kentucky, Mississippi State, South Carolina. However, the 4th team surprised me. It’s Florida.
  • In a similar vein, there has only been 4 teams since 1936 to post a winless overall record since 1936. They are Alabama, Auburn, South Carolina and, surprisingly, Florida. In fact Florida stands alone in one other piece of SEC trivia: they are the only team in the SEC to post more than 1 winless season since 1936.
  • The SEC had a losing record against the Mountain West conference last season, the only conference it had a losing record against. The last time the SEC only had a losing record against a single conference in a season was 2004 against the Big East. In fact, 2008 marked the first season in the BCS era where the SEC had a losing record against a non-BCS conference.
← Older Entries
Newer Entries →
Celadon theme by the Themes Boutique