Top to Bottom: A Conference Report
| WAC 2007 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conf Standings | Hawaii | Boise St | Fresno St | Nevada | LA Tech | San Jose St | Utah St | New Mex St | Idaho |
| Hawaii (8-0) | 12 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 15 | 37 | 28 | |
| Boise St (7-1) | -12 | 13 | 2 | 14 | 35 | 52 | 58 | 44 | |
| Fresno St (6-2) | -7 | -13 | 8 | 11 | 30 | 11 | 7 | 13 | |
| Nevada (4-4) | -2 | -2 | -8 | 39 | -3 | 3 | 2 | 16 | |
| LA Tech (4-4) | -1 | -14 | -11 | -39 | 4 | 10 | 1 | 12 | |
| San Jose St (4-4) | -7 | -35 | -30 | 3 | -4 | 3 | 34 | 8 | |
| Utah St (2-6) | -15 | -52 | -11 | -3 | -10 | -3 | 18 | 5 | |
| New Mex St (1-7) | -37 | -58 | -7 | -3 | -11 | -34 | -18 | 14 | |
| Idaho (0-8) | -28 | -44 | -13 | -16 | -12 | -8 | -5 | -14 |
In the WAC last year, the team with more conference victories won 100% of the games, creating as unbalanced of a conference as you’ll find. Sure there’s three teams in the middle at 4-4, but it’s obvious that Hawaii, then Boise State were the best of the bunch, while New Mexico State and Idaho were the worst. Basically there wasn’t a single statistical upset in the whole WAC last year - the teams with more conference victories always won, creating a solid pecking order. So you know if you're playing a team worse than you, you can be confident of a victory.
| Big East 2007 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conf Standings | W. Virginia | UConn | Cincy | USF | Rutgers | L'ville | Pitt | Syracuse |
| W. Virginia (5-2) | 45 | 5 | -8 | 28 | 7 | -4 | 41 | |
| UConn (5-2) | -45 | -24 | 7 | 19 | 4 | 20 | 23 | |
| Cincy (4-3) | -5 | 24 | 5 | 5 | -4 | -7 | 21 | |
| USF (4-3) | 8 | -7 | -5 | -3 | 38 | 11 | 31 | |
| Rutgers (3-4) | -28 | -19 | -5 | 3 | -3 | 4 | 24 | |
| L'ville (3-4) | -7 | -4 | 4 | -38 | 3 | 7 | -3 | |
| Pitt (3-4) | 4 | -20 | 7 | -11 | -4 | -7 | 3 | |
| Syracuse (1-6) | -41 | -23 | -21 | -31 | -24 | 3 | -3 |
Looking at the Big East, we see something different. Over 30% of the games between teams with different records ended in a statistical upset, making for very balanced conference. Only two conference wins separated 7 of the 8 teams, showing how very competitive they all were with each other. There's little confidence for the teams on top that just because they're playing a weaker opponent that they'll automatically come away with the win - just ask West Virginia.
A few notes on these numbers:
• Just as we only looked at non-conference games in the previous study, we’ll only be using conference games and records for this study. Non-conference games don’t have any statistical value in the discussion of how teams measure up against others in their conference. If you want info on non-conference games, just go to the other study.
• Games between teams with the same number of conference wins aren’t counted.
• “Top” and “Bottom” do not necessarily mean the exact top and bottom of the conferences. In a matchup of LSU (7 conf wins including SEC Championship) and Tennessee (6 conf wins) from 2007, LSU would be considered the “top” team and Tennessee would be considered the “bottom” team.
• Is this the only way to measure conference balance? No, probably not, though I'm confident it is a sound method. But why didn't I include other variables or measurements? Well, partly because I wanted to keep this report simple, but mainly because I didn't see any other major statistical correlations. 1) You can't compare conference records because every conference always ends up at .500, since one team wins and one loses in a conf game. 2) The range or number of conf wins doesn't consistently point towards balance, whether you're looking at how many wins it took to win the conf or how many wins separated the champ & bottom-dweller. 3) Points scored or the difference in margin of victory can't be used either, since that just falls into the annoying "it's just good offense/no, it's bad defense" carousel. But I'm willing to be open - if you know of a variable that you think is valid and worthy of inclusion, let me know and I'll check it out.
So here’s the overall standings by conference and year. (The conference average is in blue and can be used as a marker – the columns are sortable, as usual.) The tables below list the percentage of statistical upsets – the higher the percentage, the more upsets by teams on the bottom, the more balanced the conference.
| % of Conf Games that were Statistical Upsets | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conf | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | All Years |
| SunBelt | 11.8% | 11.1% | 11.8% | 26.9% | 23.8% | 16.0% | 12.5% | 16.9% | |||
| Pac10 | 08.1% | 18.9% | 16.1% | 10.8% | 12.5% | 22.2% | 07.9% | 10.8% | 28.9% | 30.0% | 16.8% |
| MtnWest | 25.0% | 20.8% | 07.7% | 15.4% | 20.8% | 12.0% | 21.9% | 15.2% | 11.8% | 16.5% | |
| ACC | 06.3% | 20.7% | 05.9% | 21.9% | 11.8% | 21.2% | 13.2% | 25.0% | 18.6% | 15.6% | 16.2% |
| CUSA | 09.1% | 04.5% | 16.7% | 15.6% | 20.0% | 07.5% | 18.2% | 21.4% | 21.3% | 13.6% | 15.6% |
| BigWest | 23.1% | 16.7% | 0% | 14.0% | |||||||
| All Confs | 08.9% | 15.6% | 13.1% | 15.2% | 10.5% | 12.7% | 12.6% | 15.6% | 16.3% | 17.8% | 13.9% |
| MAC | 11.1% | 16.0% | 18.6% | 15.9% | 07.1% | 11.3% | 07.5% | 19.0% | 13.6% | 22.0% | 13.8% |
| Big12 | 09.3% | 09.5% | 06.5% | 10.9% | 11.4% | 15.6% | 14.0% | 20.0% | 20.9% | 19.5% | 13.7% |
| Big10 | 08.1% | 16.7% | 21.6% | 29.7% | 07.3% | 07.9% | 12.5% | 05.4% | 05.1% | 19.4% | 13.3% |
| SEC | 06.3% | 12.8% | 14.0% | 18.6% | 11.4% | 04.7% | 07.0% | 09.3% | 13.0% | 20.9% | 11.7% |
| BigEast | 08.3% | 07.7% | 03.8% | 0% | 03.8% | 11.5% | 14.3% | 08.3% | 20.0% | 30.4% | 10.5% |
| WAC | 08.3% | 27.3% | 12.5% | 16.2% | 05.7% | 10.3% | 13.9% | 03.2% | 05.9% | 0% | 09.7% |
A mere 7% separates the top conference from the bottom, showing how relatively equal all the conference have been over the BCS era. The Sun Belt has the most parity, with its top teams getting upset 16.9% of the time, while the WAC has the least parity, its top teams getting upset only 9.7% of the time. Most of the BCS teams are towards the bottom of the rankings except for the Pac 10 (which is just behind the Sun Belt) at #2 and the ACC at #4.
Here’s each conference’s breakdown – I’ve gone into more detail and divided up the games by the number of wins separating the opponents. For instance, a game in the 8> column would be like Florida (8 conference wins) taking on Mississippi (0 conference wins). A game in the 1> column would be like the aforementioned LSU (7 conference wins) taking on Tennessee (6 in conference wins). But it could also be like Alabama (3 conference wins) taking on Vanderbilt (2 conference wins) – the distance between them is the same, so the size of the upset would be about the same.
| ACC | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | 9> | SU% | 8> | SU% | 7> | SU% | 6> | SU% | 5> | SU% | 4> | SU% | 3> | SU% | 2> | SU% | 1> | SU% |
| 1998 | 4 | 0% | 10 | 0% | 16 | 0% | 20 | 0% | 24 | 04.2% | 32 | 06.3% | ||||||
| 1999 | 2 | 0% | 5 | 0% | 5 | 0% | 14 | 0% | 23 | 13.0% | 29 | 20.7% | ||||||
| 2000 | 1 | 0% | 2 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 9 | 0% | 12 | 0% | 20 | 0% | 28 | 03.6% | 34 | 05.9% | ||
| 2001 | 1 | 0% | 2 | 0% | 3 | 0% | 8 | 0% | 15 | 0% | 21 | 09.5% | 32 | 21.9% | ||||
| 2002 | 1 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 7 | 0% | 11 | 0% | 18 | 0% | 25 | 08.0% | 34 | 11.8% | ||||
| 2003 | 1 | 0% | 3 | 0% | 6 | 0% | 14 | 0% | 23 | 21.7% | 33 | 21.2% | ||||||
| 2004 | 2 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 10 | 10.0% | 16 | 18.8% | 26 | 11.5% | 38 | 13.2% | ||||||
| 2005 | 1 | 0% | 3 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 9 | 0% | 18 | 11.1% | 30 | 16.7% | 44 | 25.0% | ||||
| 2006 | 2 | 0% | 3 | 0% | 8 | 0% | 12 | 0% | 20 | 05.0% | 34 | 11.8% | 43 | 18.6% | ||||
| 2007 | 1 | 0% | 1 | 0% | 3 | 0% | 6 | 0% | 12 | 0% | 19 | 10.5% | 33 | 15.2% | 45 | 15.6% | ||
| Totals | 2 | 0% | 8 | 0% | 28 | 0% | 59 | 0% | 101 | 01.0% | 174 | 04.6% | 267 | 11.6% | 364 | 16.2% |
The ACC has been all over the place - sometimes there's a lot of upsets (25% in 2005), sometimes there's almost none (5.9% in 2000). Overall their number is pretty high, and their average has increased since adding Miami, Virginia Tech, and Boston College.
| Big 10 | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | 9> | SU% | 8> | SU% | 7> | SU% | 6> | SU% | 5> | SU% | 4> | SU% | 3> | SU% | 2> | SU% | 1> | SU% |
| 1998 | 3 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 16 | 0% | 21 | 0% | 25 | 04.0% | 34 | 05.9% | 37 | 08.1% | ||||
| 1999 | 1 | 0% | 3 | 0% | 7 | 0% | 11 | 0% | 19 | 0% | 29 | 10.3% | 42 | 16.7% | ||||
| 2000 | 8 | 12.5% | 11 | 18.2% | 26 | 15.4% | 37 | 21.6% | ||||||||||
| 2001 | 2 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 11 | 09.1% | 22 | 09.1% | 37 | 29.7% | ||||||||
| 2002 | 4 | 0% | 7 | 0% | 9 | 0% | 16 | 0% | 25 | 0% | 32 | 0% | 41 | 07.3% | ||||
| 2003 | 1 | 0% | 3 | 0% | 10 | 0% | 17 | 0% | 21 | 0% | 28 | 07.1% | 38 | 07.9% | ||||
| 2004 | 3 | 0% | 5 | 0% | 10 | 0% | 23 | 04.3% | 33 | 15.2% | 40 | 12.5% | ||||||
| 2005 | 2 | 0% | 3 | 0% | 8 | 0% | 12 | 0% | 18 | 0% | 30 | 03.3% | 37 | 05.4% | ||||
| 2006 | 2 | 0% | 6 | 0% | 12 | 0% | 20 | 0% | 24 | 04.2% | 33 | 03.0% | 39 | 05.1% | ||||
| 2007 | 1 | 0% | 3 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 8 | 0% | 17 | 0% | 23 | 04.3% | 36 | 19.4% | ||||
| Totals | 14 | 0% | 32 | 0% | 73 | 0% | 127 | 00.8% | 194 | 03.1% | 290 | 07.2% | 384 | 13.3% |
The Big 10 has only been the least balanced conference one year (2006), but they've been under 10% in five years, which doesn't help their numbers. 2001 was their most balanced year, with the underdog pulling the statistical upset 11 times.
| Big 12 | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | 9> | SU% | 8> | SU% | 7> | SU% | 6> | SU% | 5> | SU% | 4> | SU% | 3> | SU% | 2> | SU% | 1> | SU% |
| 1998 | 5 | 0% | 5 | 0% | 10 | 0% | 16 | 0% | 27 | 03.7% | 36 | 08.3% | 43 | 09.3% | ||||
| 1999 | 3 | 0% | 6 | 0% | 13 | 0% | 22 | 04.5% | 27 | 03.7% | 37 | 08.1% | 42 | 09.5% | ||||
| 2000 | 1 | 0% | 2 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 7 | 0% | 11 | 0% | 20 | 0% | 30 | 0% | 38 | 02.6% | 46 | 06.5% |
| 2001 | 3 | 0% | 7 | 0% | 11 | 0% | 20 | 05.0% | 28 | 07.1% | 36 | 05.6% | 46 | 10.9% | ||||
| 2002 | 1 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 9 | 0% | 15 | 06.7% | 23 | 04.3% | 34 | 05.9% | 44 | 11.4% | ||||
| 2003 | 1 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 7 | 0% | 10 | 0% | 17 | 0% | 25 | 0% | 36 | 05.6% | 45 | 15.6% | ||
| 2004 | 1 | 0% | 3 | 0% | 5 | 0% | 8 | 0% | 13 | 07.7% | 20 | 05.0% | 30 | 03.3% | 43 | 14.0% | ||
| 2005 | 1 | 0% | 2 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 7 | 14.3% | 14 | 07.1% | 23 | 04.3% | 34 | 08.8% | 45 | 20.0% | ||
| 2006 | 1 | 0% | 2 | 0% | 6 | 0% | 9 | 0% | 17 | 11.8% | 30 | 16.7% | 43 | 20.9% | ||||
| 2007 | 2 | 0% | 2 | 0% | 8 | 0% | 14 | 0% | 27 | 07.4% | 34 | 11.8% | 41 | 19.5% | ||||
| Totals | 1 | 0% | 5 | 0% | 28 | 0% | 49 | 0% | 93 | 01.1% | 160 | 03.1% | 247 | 04.5% | 345 | 07.5% | 438 | 13.7% |
The Big 12 has definitely gotten more balanced over the last ten years. They finished the 90's averaging under 10%, but now the top teams get upset an average of about 20% of the time. Solid.
| Big East | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | 9> | SU% | 8> | SU% | 7> | SU% | 6> | SU% | 5> | SU% | 4> | SU% | 3> | SU% | 2> | SU% | 1> | SU% |
| 1998 | 1 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 6 | 0% | 14 | 07.1% | 19 | 05.3% | 24 | 08.3% | ||||||
| 1999 | 1 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 8 | 0% | 12 | 0% | 17 | 11.8% | 26 | 07.7% | ||||||
| 2000 | 1 | 0% | 3 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 8 | 0% | 16 | 0% | 20 | 0% | 26 | 03.8% | ||||
| 2001 | 1 | 0% | 3 | 0% | 5 | 0% | 9 | 0% | 15 | 0% | 22 | 0% | 25 | 0% | ||||
| 2002 | 1 | 0% | 2 | 0% | 5 | 0% | 9 | 0% | 15 | 0% | 20 | 0% | 26 | 03.8% | ||||
| 2003 | 2 | 0% | 3 | 0% | 8 | 0% | 13 | 0% | 20 | 05.0% | 26 | 11.5% | ||||||
| 2004 | 8 | 12.5% | 10 | 10.0% | 14 | 14.3% | ||||||||||||
| 2005 | 1 | 0% | 1 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 7 | 0% | 12 | 0% | 21 | 04.8% | 24 | 08.3% | ||||
| 2006 | 2 | 0% | 7 | 0% | 13 | 0% | 17 | 05.9% | 25 | 20.0% | ||||||||
| 2007 | 2 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 13 | 15.4% | 23 | 30.4% | ||||||||||
| Totals | 4 | 0% | 13 | 0% | 31 | 0% | 64 | 0% | 122 | 01.6% | 179 | 05.0% | 239 | 10.5% |
The Big East is second to last in balance, but the last two years they've surged, culminating in last year's sky-high 30.4%. The conference losses and additions didn't affect much in 2004 or 2005, but they're starting to now.
| Big West | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | 9> | SU% | 8> | SU% | 7> | SU% | 6> | SU% | 5> | SU% | 4> | SU% | 3> | SU% | 2> | SU% | 1> | SU% |
| 1998 | 1 | 0% | 5 | 20.0% | 13 | 23.1% | ||||||||||||
| 1999 | 1 | 100% | 4 | 25.0% | 10 | 10.0% | 18 | 16.7% | ||||||||||
| 2000 | 3 | 0% | 6 | 0% | 10 | 0% | 12 | 0% | ||||||||||
| Totals | 4 | 25.0% | 11 | 09.1% | 25 | 08.0% | 43 | 14.0% |
The Big West was pretty balanced, back before their last year. Meh.
| CUSA | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | 9> | SU% | 8> | SU% | 7> | SU% | 6> | SU% | 5> | SU% | 4> | SU% | 3> | SU% | 2> | SU% | 1> | SU% |
| 1998 | 2 | 0% | 5 | 0% | 9 | 0% | 14 | 0% | 22 | 09.1% | ||||||||
| 1999 | 1 | 0% | 3 | 0% | 7 | 0% | 14 | 07.1% | 19 | 05.3% | 22 | 04.5% | ||||||
| 2000 | 1 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 10 | 10.0% | 19 | 21.1% | 30 | 16.7% | ||||||||
| 2001 | 1 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 9 | 0% | 16 | 06.3% | 23 | 08.7% | 32 | 15.6% | ||||||
| 2002 | 1 | 0% | 5 | 0% | 12 | 08.3% | 21 | 23.8% | 35 | 20.0% | ||||||||
| 2003 | 2 | 0% | 3 | 0% | 7 | 0% | 15 | 0% | 24 | 0% | 31 | 0% | 40 | 07.5% | ||||
| 2004 | 2 | 0% | 6 | 0% | 6 | 0% | 13 | 07.7% | 26 | 15.4% | 33 | 18.2% | ||||||
| 2005 | 4 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 9 | 0% | 19 | 10.5% | 32 | 18.8% | 42 | 21.4% | ||||||
| 2006 | 1 | 0% | 2 | 0% | 5 | 0% | 12 | 08.3% | 19 | 10.5% | 32 | 12.5% | 47 | 21.3% | ||||
| 2007 | 1 | 0% | 2 | 0% | 6 | 0% | 12 | 0% | 16 | 06.3% | 31 | 06.5% | 40 | 12.5% | 44 | 13.6% | ||
| Totals | 1 | 0% | 5 | 0% | 19 | 0% | 45 | 0% | 88 | 02.3% | 167 | 06.6% | 257 | 12.1% | 347 | 15.6% |
The CUSA is solid, the bottom team pulling the upset more than 15% of the time on average and in six of ten years.
| MAC | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | 9> | SU% | 8> | SU% | 7> | SU% | 6> | SU% | 5> | SU% | 4> | SU% | 3> | SU% | 2> | SU% | 1> | SU% |
| 1998 | 1 | 0% | 3 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 12 | 0% | 16 | 0% | 27 | 11.1% | 38 | 07.9% | 45 | 11.1% | ||
| 1999 | 1 | 0% | 1 | 0% | 2 | 0% | 6 | 0% | 13 | 0% | 18 | 0% | 31 | 0% | 39 | 02.6% | 50 | 16.0% |
| 2000 | 1 | 0% | 4 | 25.0% | 12 | 08.3% | 23 | 08.7% | 32 | 09.4% | 43 | 18.6% | ||||||
| 2001 | 2 | 0% | 3 | 0% | 7 | 0% | 14 | 0% | 22 | 0% | 33 | 06.1% | 44 | 15.9% | ||||
| 2002 | 1 | 0% | 2 | 0% | 7 | 0% | 14 | 07.1% | 22 | 04.5% | 33 | 03.0% | 44 | 06.8% | 56 | 07.1% | ||
| 2003 | 2 | 0% | 3 | 0% | 5 | 0% | 14 | 0% | 22 | 0% | 33 | 03.0% | 42 | 02.4% | 53 | 11.3% | ||
| 2004 | 1 | 0% | 5 | 0% | 11 | 0% | 15 | 0% | 26 | 0% | 30 | 0% | 42 | 0% | 53 | 07.5% | ||
| 2005 | 2 | 0% | 7 | 0% | 10 | 0% | 16 | 0% | 27 | 11.1% | 42 | 19.0% | ||||||
| 2006 | 2 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 9 | 0% | 18 | 11.1% | 25 | 12.0% | 37 | 13.5% | 44 | 13.6% | ||||
| 2007 | 2 | 0% | 3 | 0% | 10 | 10.0% | 16 | 12.5% | 30 | 10.0% | 41 | 22.0% | ||||||
| Totals | 1 | 0% | 6 | 0% | 19 | 0% | 45 | 0% | 98 | 02.0% | 168 | 03.0% | 256 | 04.7% | 364 | 06.6% | 471 | 13.8% |
The MAC is usually within a few percentage points of the average - not too many upsets, nor too few.
| Mtn West | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | 9> | SU% | 8> | SU% | 7> | SU% | 6> | SU% | 5> | SU% | 4> | SU% | 3> | SU% | 2> | SU% | 1> | SU% |
| 1999 | 3 | 0% | 7 | 14.3% | 16 | 12.5% | 24 | 25.0% | ||||||||||
| 2000 | 1 | 0% | 2 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 10 | 0% | 15 | 06.7% | 24 | 20.8% | ||||||
| 2001 | 1 | 0% | 1 | 0% | 3 | 0% | 7 | 0% | 12 | 08.3% | 18 | 05.6% | 26 | 07.7% | ||||
| 2002 | 1 | 0% | 3 | 0% | 8 | 25.0% | 16 | 18.8% | 26 | 15.4% | ||||||||
| 2003 | 2 | 0% | 7 | 14.3% | 13 | 23.1% | 24 | 20.8% | ||||||||||
| 2004 | 1 | 0% | 2 | 0% | 6 | 0% | 9 | 11.1% | 17 | 11.8% | 25 | 12.0% | ||||||
| 2005 | 1 | 0% | 2 | 0% | 3 | 0% | 8 | 0% | 15 | 06.7% | 21 | 04.8% | 32 | 21.9% | ||||
| 2006 | 2 | 0% | 2 | 0% | 6 | 0% | 11 | 0% | 17 | 0% | 27 | 07.4% | 33 | 15.2% | ||||
| 2007 | 1 | 0% | 3 | 0% | 5 | 0% | 10 | 10.0% | 18 | 05.6% | 25 | 08.0% | 34 | 11.8% | ||||
| Totals | 5 | 0% | 10 | 0% | 22 | 0% | 54 | 01.9% | 103 | 07.8% | 168 | 10.1% | 248 | 16.5% |
The Mtn West is near the top of the rankings, thanks in part to four years in which the bottom team pulled the upset more than 20% of the time.
| Pac 10 | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | 9> | SU% | 8> | SU% | 7> | SU% | 6> | SU% | 5> | SU% | 4> | SU% | 3> | SU% | 2> | SU% | 1> | SU% |
| 1998 | 1 | 0% | 2 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 9 | 0% | 13 | 0% | 22 | 04.5% | 28 | 07.1% | 37 | 08.1% | ||
| 1999 | 1 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 10 | 20.0% | 18 | 11.1% | 28 | 14.3% | 37 | 18.9% | ||||||
| 2000 | 8 | 0% | 16 | 0% | 18 | 0% | 21 | 0% | 31 | 16.1% | ||||||||
| 2001 | 1 | 0% | 5 | 0% | 10 | 0% | 16 | 0% | 22 | 04.5% | 29 | 10.3% | 37 | 10.8% | ||||
| 2002 | 3 | 0% | 3 | 0% | 7 | 0% | 21 | 09.5% | 26 | 07.7% | 32 | 12.5% | ||||||
| 2003 | 1 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 8 | 0% | 18 | 11.1% | 27 | 18.5% | 36 | 22.2% | ||||||
| 2004 | 1 | 0% | 2 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 8 | 0% | 11 | 0% | 20 | 05.0% | 30 | 03.3% | 38 | 07.9% | ||
| 2005 | 2 | 0% | 5 | 0% | 8 | 0% | 13 | 07.7% | 22 | 04.5% | 31 | 03.2% | 37 | 10.8% | ||||
| 2006 | 2 | 0% | 3 | 0% | 6 | 0% | 19 | 05.3% | 27 | 18.5% | 38 | 28.9% | ||||||
| 2007 | 2 | 0% | 9 | 11.1% | 16 | 06.3% | 28 | 17.9% | 40 | 30.0% | ||||||||
| Totals | 2 | 0% | 7 | 0% | 25 | 0% | 59 | 0% | 109 | 03.7% | 196 | 06.1% | 275 | 10.2% | 363 | 16.8% |
The Pac 10 is the most balanced of the BCS confs and just below the SunBelt overall. They broke the 30% upset mark last year thanks to a slew of competitive games.
| SEC | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | 9> | SU% | 8> | SU% | 7> | SU% | 6> | SU% | 5> | SU% | 4> | SU% | 3> | SU% | 2> | SU% | 1> | SU% |
| 1998 | 1 | 0% | 3 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 9 | 0% | 17 | 0% | 21 | 04.8% | 33 | 03.0% | 43 | 07.0% | 48 | 06.3% |
| 1999 | 2 | 0% | 7 | 0% | 11 | 0% | 21 | 0% | 27 | 07.4% | 40 | 15.0% | 47 | 12.8% | ||||
| 2000 | 1 | 0% | 2 | 0% | 2 | 0% | 7 | 0% | 13 | 07.7% | 20 | 05.0% | 32 | 12.5% | 43 | 14.0% | ||
| 2001 | 1 | 0% | 3 | 0% | 8 | 0% | 14 | 0% | 19 | 0% | 27 | 11.1% | 43 | 18.6% | ||||
| 2002 | 1 | 0% | 1 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 13 | 0% | 13 | 0% | 26 | 03.8% | 37 | 08.1% | 44 | 11.4% | ||
| 2003 | 1 | 0% | 5 | 0% | 14 | 0% | 22 | 0% | 27 | 0% | 34 | 02.9% | 43 | 04.7% | ||||
| 2004 | 1 | 0% | 2 | 0% | 7 | 0% | 10 | 0% | 13 | 0% | 25 | 0% | 33 | 03.0% | 43 | 07.0% | ||
| 2005 | 5 | 0% | 12 | 0% | 18 | 05.6% | 22 | 04.5% | 32 | 06.3% | 43 | 09.3% | ||||||
| 2006 | 1 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 9 | 0% | 17 | 0% | 24 | 04.2% | 34 | 08.8% | 46 | 13.0% | ||||
| 2007 | 1 | 0% | 2 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 11 | 09.1% | 20 | 15.0% | 30 | 13.3% | 43 | 20.9% | ||||
| Totals | 1 | 0% | 6 | 0% | 15 | 0% | 48 | 0% | 105 | 0% | 163 | 02.5% | 243 | 04.1% | 342 | 08.8% | 443 | 11.7% |
2007 was the most balanced the SEC has been in the BCS era, but they've only been above 14% in two of the ten BCS years. Not what you were expecting, huh?
| SunBelt | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | 9> | SU% | 8> | SU% | 7> | SU% | 6> | SU% | 5> | SU% | 4> | SU% | 3> | SU% | 2> | SU% | 1> | SU% |
| 2001 | 2 | 0% | 9 | 11.1% | 12 | 08.3% | 17 | 11.8% | ||||||||||
| 2002 | 1 | 0% | 5 | 0% | 9 | 0% | 11 | 0% | 18 | 11.1% | ||||||||
| 2003 | 1 | 0% | 2 | 0% | 7 | 0% | 7 | 0% | 11 | 09.1% | 17 | 11.8% | ||||||
| 2004 | 3 | 0% | 6 | 0% | 7 | 0% | 13 | 07.7% | 26 | 26.9% | ||||||||
| 2005 | 6 | 16.7% | 15 | 20.0% | 21 | 23.8% | ||||||||||||
| 2006 | 2 | 0% | 2 | 0% | 6 | 0% | 12 | 0% | 19 | 05.3% | 25 | 16.0% | ||||||
| 2007 | 4 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 12 | 08.3% | 20 | 10.0% | 24 | 12.5% | ||||||||
| Totals | 3 | 0% | 12 | 0% | 30 | 0% | 62 | 04.8% | 101 | 08.9% | 148 | 16.9% |
The Sun Belt can take the title of most balanced, thanks to a few solid years and never being under 11%.
| WAC | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | 9> | SU% | 8> | SU% | 7> | SU% | 6> | SU% | 5> | SU% | 4> | SU% | 3> | SU% | 2> | SU% | 1> | SU% |
| 1998 | 1 | 0% | 5 | 0% | 9 | 0% | 14 | 0% | 26 | 07.7% | 32 | 06.3% | 50 | 08.0% | 60 | 08.3% | ||
| 1999 | 6 | 0% | 8 | 0% | 17 | 11.8% | 22 | 27.3% | ||||||||||
| 2000 | 2 | 0% | 9 | 0% | 13 | 0% | 19 | 0% | 25 | 08.0% | 32 | 12.5% | ||||||
| 2001 | 1 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 7 | 0% | 12 | 0% | 19 | 0% | 26 | 03.8% | 37 | 16.2% | ||||
| 2002 | 2 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 7 | 0% | 11 | 0% | 19 | 0% | 28 | 03.6% | 35 | 05.7% | ||||
| 2003 | 1 | 0% | 2 | 0% | 5 | 0% | 9 | 0% | 15 | 0% | 21 | 0% | 30 | 03.3% | 39 | 10.3% | ||
| 2004 | 1 | 0% | 1 | 0% | 5 | 0% | 8 | 0% | 15 | 06.7% | 26 | 07.7% | 36 | 13.9% | ||||
| 2005 | 2 | 0% | 4 | 0% | 10 | 0% | 17 | 0% | 19 | 0% | 27 | 0% | 31 | 03.2% | ||||
| 2006 | 2 | 0% | 5 | 0% | 7 | 0% | 13 | 0% | 20 | 05.0% | 27 | 03.7% | 34 | 05.9% | ||||
| 2007 | 1 | 0% | 3 | 0% | 6 | 0% | 8 | 0% | 15 | 0% | 21 | 0% | 29 | 0% | 33 | 0% | ||
| Totals | 3 | 0% | 18 | 0% | 40 | 0% | 76 | 0% | 136 | 01.5% | 193 | 02.1% | 285 | 04.9% | 359 | 09.7% |
Finally, the WAC is at the bottom of the pack, its bottom teams upsetting its top teams less than 10% of the time in the BCS era.
So what can we conclude from all these numbers? First, it seems rather obvious (though here we're proving it conclusively) that the more conference victories you have, the better your chances are of beating a team with fewer victories. A team that had that had a deficit of more than 4 conf wins to their opponent has only won 3 conference games in the BCS era (once in the Big 12 and twice in the MAC).
Second, and more importantly, conferences are becoming more equal - yes, parity is there. In 1998, the top teams were only upset in 8.9% of their conference games, but that number has doubled to 17.8% last year, the highest it’s been in the BCS era. That jump of almost 10 percentage points might not seem like much, but it represents around 4-5 more upsets per conference per year, which is sizable.
3 comments:
The only statistical problem with your definition of a statistical upset is that the simple fact of a win by the "lower" team makes is less of an upset. For instance... Let's say 7-0 Wisconsin plays 0-7 Minnesota. If Minnesota knocks them off, it becomes a 6 point upset - even though they were separated by 7 at game time. More importantly, if the 3-4 team beats the 4-3 team, by your definition, it is not an upset at all. Overall I liked the analysis, though. Thanks.
Thanks for bringing up a good point, John. You can't really look at the stats while the season is going on, mainly because all of the games have to be played in order to calculate statistical upsets.
As another example, if Michigan State (1-2) plays Purdue (2-1) in October and loses, then it wouldn't be seen as an upset since Purdue had more conference wins at the time. But if Michigan State finishes the conference season at (5-3) and Purdue finishes at (3-5) or (4-4), the Boilermakers' win over the Spartans in October would be an upset since they ended up with fewer conference wins as a whole.
Same thing with the SEC championship game last year - it wasn't going to be a statistical upset no matter what, since both LSU & Tennessee came into the game with 6 conference wins.
Part of the reason I set up the analysis like that is so that snap judgments are taken out of play. There's something to be said for ranking the teams during each week of the season, but I feel that to get the most accurate view of a team's or conference's whole season, you have to wait until all the games have been played.
If we would have a true national championship, we would not have to spend our time with all the conference comparisons. "Conferencecentrism" might be fun for the statistical types and conference fans, but it really is not good for the college game and the athletes that play it. As it stands now, if you are a football player in a non-BCS conference you are second class. Of course the conferences that have the history, prestige and bowl contracts are going to be better because they keep getting more money to recruit with each year. When will people see that the lack of a systematic conference alignment that allows new programs to legitimately compete with the old guard schools. The fan loyalty and love for certain conferences just makes it difficult move forward with a new playoff format.
Post a Comment