2009 Top to Bottom
Which conferences had the most parity this season?
As I did two years ago, then again for 2008, we're going to break down each conference to see which ones were the most balanced, top to bottom.
As I said before, the premise is that the more often the team with fewer conference victories wins, which we’ll call a "Statistical Upset", the more balanced the conference. Basically, how often do the teams at the bottom upset the teams at the top? The maximum here is 50%, since it's impossible to have more than half of the games in a conference be upsets. The average over all conferences during the BCS era sits at about 13.7%. Below is the big parity table - the numbers in red are below average, blue are above, red shaded means that conference was the least balanced conference in any particular year, and blue shaded is the most balanced in any year. Sort by clicking on the year headers if you want.
| % of Conf Games that were Statistical Upsets | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conf | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | Conf Avg |
| ACC | 06.3% | 20.7% | 05.9% | 21.9% | 11.8% | 21.2% | 13.2% | 25.0% | 18.6% | 15.6% | 29.0% | 15.2% | 17.0% |
| Pac10 | 08.1% | 18.9% | 16.1% | 10.8% | 12.5% | 22.2% | 07.9% | 10.8% | 28.9% | 30.0% | 14.0% | 22.0% | 17.0% |
| CUSA | 09.1% | 04.5% | 16.7% | 15.6% | 20.0% | 07.5% | 18.2% | 21.4% | 21.3% | 13.6% | 14.6% | 20.0% | 15.9% |
| SunBelt | 11.8% | 11.1% | 11.8% | 26.9% | 23.8% | 16.0% | 12.5% | 16.7% | 05.9% | 15.0% | |||
| BigWest | 23.1% | 16.7% | 00.0% | 14.0% | |||||||||
| Big10 | 08.1% | 16.7% | 21.6% | 29.7% | 07.3% | 07.9% | 12.5% | 05.4% | 05.1% | 19.4% | 13.2% | 20.0% | 13.9% |
| Year Avg | 09.8% | 16.0% | 12.4% | 14.5% | 10.7% | 13.2% | 13.4% | 15.3% | 16.2% | 17.8% | 13.2% | 12.6% | 13.7% |
| MtnWest | 25.0% | 20.8% | 07.7% | 15.4% | 20.8% | 12.0% | 21.9% | 15.2% | 11.8% | 02.9% | 00.0% | 13.2% | |
| MAC | 11.1% | 16.0% | 18.6% | 15.9% | 07.1% | 11.3% | 07.5% | 19.0% | 13.6% | 22.0% | 10.6% | 10.0% | 13.2% |
| Big12 | 09.3% | 09.5% | 06.5% | 10.9% | 11.4% | 15.6% | 14.0% | 20.0% | 20.9% | 19.5% | 02.6% | 15.6% | 13.0% |
| SEC | 06.3% | 12.8% | 14.0% | 18.6% | 11.4% | 04.7% | 07.0% | 09.3% | 13.0% | 20.9% | 19.0% | 15.4% | 12.6% |
| BigEast | 08.3% | 07.7% | 03.8% | 00.0% | 03.8% | 11.5% | 14.3% | 08.3% | 20.0% | 30.4% | 12.5% | 08.7% | 10.5% |
| WAC | 08.3% | 27.3% | 12.5% | 16.2% | 05.7% | 10.3% | 13.9% | 03.2% | 05.9% | 00.0% | 09.7% | 06.3% | 09.5% |
Overall during the BCS years, the Pac10 and ACC have been the most balanced conferences, with 17% of their games resulting in an upset. One of those two has been the most balanced conference in 5 of the last 7 years running as well. The WAC is generally the most unbalanced conference with the least amount of parity, even notching a perfectly unbalanced season in 2007. The BigEast is iffy, becoming unbalanced this year and last after having the most parity-filled season of the BCS era in 2007. So let's start looking at the individual conferences for 2009.
Games shaded blue are ones in which the team with more conference victories won, red are ones in which the team with more conference victories lost, and green are ones between teams with the same number of conference victories. The numbers represent the margin of victory (or loss, if the number is negative) for the team listed in the farthest left-hand row.
| Pac10 2009 - 22.0% upsets | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conf Standings | Oregon | OreSt | Stanfd | Ariz | Cal | USC | Wash | UCLA | ArizSt | WashSt |
| Oregon (8-1) | 4 | -9 | 3 | 39 | 27 | 24 | 14 | 23 | 46 | |
| Oregon St (6-3) | -4 | 10 | -5 | 17 | -6 | 27 | 7 | 11 | 32 | |
| Stanford (6-3) | 9 | -10 | -5 | -6 | 34 | 20 | 8 | 19 | 26 | |
| Arizona (6-3) | -3 | 5 | 5 | -8 | 4 | -3 | 14 | 3 | 41 | |
| California (5-4) | -39 | -17 | 6 | 8 | -27 | -32 | 19 | 2 | 32 | |
| USC (5-4) | -27 | 6 | -34 | -4 | 27 | -3 | 21 | 5 | 21 | |
| Washington (4-5) | -24 | -27 | -20 | 3 | 32 | 3 | -1 | -7 | 30 | |
| UCLA (3-6) | -14 | -7 | -8 | -14 | -19 | -21 | 1 | 10 | 36 | |
| Arizona St (2-7) | -23 | -11 | -19 | -3 | -2 | -5 | 7 | -10 | 13 | |
| Washington St (0-9) | -46 | -32 | -26 | -41 | -32 | -21 | -30 | -36 | -13 |
People have said it this year, and here's the proof - the Pac10 is extremely balanced top to bottom this year. Amazingly, most of that was due to Washington. The Huskies were involved in more than half of the conference's upsets this year, beating teams "better" than them 3 times and losing to teams "worse" than them 2 times. The only team that didn't have a role in the upsets was Washington State, the only truly weak team of the bunch.
| Big10 2009 - 20.0% upsets | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conf Standings | OhioSt | PennSt | Iowa | Wisc | NWest | Mich St | Purdue | Minn | Ill | Mich | Indi |
| Ohio St (7-1) | 17 | 3 | 18 | -8 | 31 | 30 | 11 | 19 | |||
| Penn St (6-2) | -17 | -11 | 21 | 28 | 20 | 18 | 25 | 11 | |||
| Iowa (6-2) | -3 | 11 | 10 | -7 | 2 | 12 | 2 | 18 | |||
| Wisconsin (5-3) | -18 | -10 | -2 | 8 | 37 | 3 | 21 | 3 | |||
| Northwestern (5-3) | -21 | 7 | 2 | -10 | 6 | -11 | 5 | 1 | |||
| Michigan St (4-4) | -28 | -2 | -8 | 10 | 3 | -8 | 10 | 6 | |||
| Purdue (4-4) | 8 | -37 | -6 | -3 | -15 | 10 | 2 | 17 | |||
| Minnesota (3-5) | -31 | -20 | -12 | -3 | 11 | 8 | 15 | -3 | |||
| Illinois (2-6) | -30 | -18 | -5 | -10 | -10 | 3 | 25 | -13 | |||
| Michigan (1-7) | -11 | -25 | -2 | -21 | -6 | -2 | -25 | 3 | |||
| Indiana (1-7) | -19 | -11 | -18 | -3 | -1 | -17 | 13 | -3 |
The Big10 saw one of the biggest conference upsets of the year, 4-4 Purdue over 7-1 Ohio State. Minnesota played a big role here, knocking off 3 teams above them in the standings an losing to 1 below them. The usual biggies, Penn State, Wisconsin, and Michigan, all played their roles, losing to the good but beating the bad.
(Y'all know I loves me some tables. But these especially because they can be looked at from a lot of different angles. In addition to all of the upset data for instance, it's apparent that Minnesota ended up with the toughest draw in the Big10, not getting to play the two statistically weakest teams, Michigan and Indiana. While at the other end, Purdue avoided the #2 & #3 teams, Penn State and Iowa. Another way to use the rows is to note how consistent each team was in their performances. For instance, even though Michigan played their role, the margins of their victories and losses are uneven - losing to 6-2 Iowa by -2, but losing to 2-6 Illinois by -25. Losing to 7-1 Ohio State by -11 but losing to 5-3 Wisconsin by -21. If they were consistent, you'd expect the bigger losses to be to the better teams, but that's not the case. As I said, lots of ways of using these tables...)
| CUSA 2009 - 20.0% upsets | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conf Standings | E Car | Houst | UCF | SMU | S Miss | Marsh | UAB | UTEP | Tulsa | Rice | Tulane | Memph |
| East Carolina (7-1) | 5 | -7 | 5 | 4 | 16 | 27 | 36 | 19 | ||||
| Houston (6-2) | -5 | 23 | 7 | -17 | 1 | 59 | 28 | 41 | ||||
| Central Florida (6-2) | -5 | 5 | -7 | 1 | 7 | 42 | 49 | 18 | ||||
| SMU (6-2) | 7 | -23 | -3 | 2 | 4 | 14 | 3 | 5 | ||||
| Southern Miss (5-3) | -5 | -7 | 7 | 7 | -13 | 10 | 37 | 20 | ||||
| Marshall (4-4) | -4 | -1 | 3 | -7 | 20 | -31 | 21 | 11 | ||||
| UAB (4-4) | -16 | -7 | -2 | 13 | -20 | 5 | 20 | 10 | ||||
| UTEP (3-5) | 17 | -4 | 31 | -5 | 4 | -1 | -7 | -15 | ||||
| Tulsa (3-5) | -27 | -1 | -14 | -10 | -4 | 17 | 24 | 3 | ||||
| Rice (2-6) | -36 | -59 | -42 | -3 | -20 | 1 | -17 | 8 | ||||
| Tulane(1-7) | -28 | -49 | -5 | -37 | -21 | 7 | -24 | -8 | ||||
| Memphis (1-7) | -19 | -41 | -18 | -20 | -11 | -10 | 15 | -3 |
The CUSA was pretty balanced as well this year. The story here is that half of the conference's teams lost at least 1 game to a team directly below them in the standings. Everything else was UTEP, losing to 3 of the 4 teams below them and beating 1 above them.
| Big12 2009 - 15.6% upsets | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conf Standings | Texas | Nebras | OK St | TX Tech | Okla | Mizzou | KS St | Iowa St | TX A&M | Colo | Kansas | Baylor |
| Texas (8-0) | 27 | 10 | 3 | 34 | 10 | 24 | 31 | 33 | ||||
| Nebraska (6-2) | -21 | 7 | 15 | 14 | -2 | 8 | 14 | 10 | ||||
| Oklahoma St (6-2) | -27 | 7 | -27 | 16 | 26 | 5 | 3 | 27 | ||||
| Texas Tech (5-3) | -10 | 21 | -7 | 28 | 52 | -22 | 21 | 7 | ||||
| Oklahoma (5-3) | -3 | -7 | 27 | -28 | 12 | 55 | 22 | 26 | ||||
| Missouri (4-4) | -34 | -15 | -16 | 26 | 10 | 19 | 2 | -8 | ||||
| Kansas St (4-4) | -14 | -52 | -12 | -26 | 1 | 48 | 14 | 7 | ||||
| Iowa St (3-5) | 2 | -26 | -10 | -1 | -25 | 7 | -5 | 14 | ||||
| Texas A&M (3-5) | -10 | -5 | 22 | -55 | -48 | 25 | -1 | 35 | ||||
| Colorado (2-6) | -24 | -8 | -3 | -19 | -14 | -7 | 1 | 4 | ||||
| Kansas (1-7) | -31 | -14 | -21 | -22 | -2 | -7 | 5 | -4 | ||||
| Baylor (1-7) | -33 | -10 | -27 | -7 | -26 | 8 | -14 | -35 |
The Big12 jumps back into a bit more balance after their uber-top heavy 2008 season. Oklahoma, for all their trials this year, ended up on the positive side, beating 1 team ahead of them and pretty much creaming the ones below them. 1-7 Baylor over 4-4 Missouri was the biggest upset in the bunch, and the Tigers needed it - they missed creampuffs Colorado and Kansas, as well as middling Kansas State.
| SEC 2009 - 15.4% upsets | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conf Standings | Bama | Fla | LSU | Tenn | UGA | Miss | SoCar | Ark | Auburn | MissSt | Kenty | Vandy |
| Alabama (8-0) | 9 | 2 | 19 | 14 | 28 | 5 | 28 | 18 | ||||
| Florida (8-0) | 10 | 10 | 24 | 10 | 3 | 10 | 34 | 24 | ||||
| LSU (5-3) | -9 | -10 | 7 | -2 | 3 | 21 | 4 | 14 | ||||
| Tennessee (4-4) | -2 | -10 | 26 | -25 | 18 | -4 | 6 | 15 | ||||
| Georgia (4-4) | -24 | -7 | -26 | 4 | 11 | 7 | -7 | 24 | ||||
| Mississippi (4-4) | -19 | 2 | 25 | -6 | 13 | -13 | -14 | 16 | ||||
| South Carolina (3-5) | -14 | -10 | -18 | -4 | 6 | -17 | 2 | 4 | ||||
| Arkansas (3-5) | -28 | -3 | -3 | -11 | -13 | 17 | 21 | 21 | ||||
| Auburn (3-5) | -5 | -21 | 4 | -7 | 13 | -21 | 25 | -7 | ||||
| Mississippi St (3-5) | -28 | -10 | -4 | 14 | -21 | -25 | 7 | 12 | ||||
| Kentucky (3-5) | -18 | -34 | -6 | 7 | -2 | 7 | -7 | 11 | ||||
| Vanderbilt (0-8) | -24 | -14 | -15 | -24 | -16 | -4 | -12 | -11 |
The story of the SEC is all the green - 9 of the 12 teams finished conference play at 5-3, 4-4, or 3-5. The other ones were top-ranked Florida & Alabama and the anchor that is Vanderbilt. Mississippi, who many thought would compete for the title this year, beat LSU and Tennessee, but it was the bottom half of South Carolina, Auburn, and Mississippi State that tripped them up. Arkansas had the easiest road of the bunch, missing Kentucky and Vandy, but they still weren't able to make it happen.
| ACC 2009 - 15.2% upsets | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conf Standings | GA Tech | Clemsn | VA Tech | Miami | Bost C | Fla St | UNC | Wake F | Duke | NC St | UVA | Maryld |
| Georgia Tech (7-1) | 3 | 5 | -16 | 5 | 17 | 3 | 39 | 25 | ||||
| Clemson (6-2) | -3 | 3 | 18 | 16 | 35 | 20 | 13 | -3 | ||||
| Virginia Tech (6-2) | -5 | 24 | 34 | -3 | 8 | 28 | 29 | 27 | ||||
| Miami (FL) (5-3) | 16 | -3 | -24 | 4 | -9 | 1 | 18 | 35 | ||||
| Boston College (5-3) | -18 | -34 | 7 | -18 | 3 | 32 | 4 | 2 | ||||
| Florida St (4-4) | -5 | -16 | -4 | -7 | 3 | 13 | 3 | 3 | ||||
| North Carolina (4-4) | -17 | 3 | 9 | 18 | -3 | 13 | -1 | -13 | ||||
| Wake Forest (3-5) | -3 | -35 | -1 | -3 | -13 | 11 | 6 | 10 | ||||
| Duke (3-5) | -39 | -8 | -18 | -13 | -11 | 21 | 11 | 4 | ||||
| NC State (2-6) | -20 | -28 | -32 | -3 | 1 | -6 | -21 | 7 | ||||
| Virginia (2-6) | -25 | -13 | -29 | -35 | -4 | 13 | -11 | 11 | ||||
| Maryland (1-7) | 3 | -27 | -2 | -3 | -10 | -4 | -7 | -11 |
1-7 Maryland over 6-2 Clemson? That's still a head-scratcher. North Carolina's stellar D snuck up on some teams this year, including BC, Miami, and Virginia Tech, all of whom the Tar Heels beat - but their offense let them down in losses to NC State and Virginia. Of the 7 conference upsets, UNC had a hand in 5 of them.
| MAC 2009 - 10.0% upsets | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conf Standings | C Mich | Ohio | Temple | Bowl G | N Ill | Kent | W Mich | Buff | Toledo | Ball St | Akron | Miami | E Mich |
| C. Mich (8-0) | 14 | 14 | 11 | 7 | 28 | 32 | 27 | 48 | |||||
| Ohio (7-1) | 18 | 7 | 7 | -9 | 3 | 3 | 12 | 21 | |||||
| Temple (7-1) | -18 | 34 | 24 | 16 | 5 | 39 | 2 | 12 | |||||
| B. Green (6-2) | -14 | -7 | 1 | 1 | 14 | 14 | 16 | 21 | |||||
| N. Illinois (5-3) | -14 | -7 | 35 | -1 | 6 | 17 | 5 | 44 | |||||
| Kent St (4-4) | 9 | -34 | -1 | 12 | -3 | -8 | 10 | 22 | |||||
| W. Mich (4-4) | -11 | -35 | -12 | 3 | 32 | -5 | 22 | 21 | |||||
| Buffalo (3-5) | -7 | -3 | -24 | -1 | 3 | -3 | 4 | 25 | |||||
| Toledo (3-5) | -28 | -16 | -14 | 1 | -32 | 7 | -7 | 26 | |||||
| Ball St (2-6) | -32 | -3 | -5 | -14 | -6 | 5 | -7 | 2 | |||||
| Akron (2-6) | -27 | -12 | -39 | -16 | -17 | 8 | -4 | 7 | |||||
| Miami (1-7) | -21 | -2 | -21 | -5 | -10 | -22 | -25 | 7 | |||||
| E. Mich (0-8) | -48 | -12 | -44 | -22 | -21 | -26 | -2 | -7 |
A little bit of balance in the MAC this year, but not much. Central Michigan, Ohio, Temple, and Bowling Green were the best of the bunch, only dropping one game they shouldn't have amongst the four of them. With the exception of winning-challenged Eastern Michigan, each of the teams in the bottom half was able to notch a single upset over a team just above them in the standings. Kent State was the victim of two of those, but notched an upset of Ohio themselves.
| BigEast 2009 - 8.7% upsets | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conf Standings | Cincy | Pitt | WestVA | Rutg | USF | UConn | L'vlle | Syrac |
| Cincinnati (7-0) | 1 | 3 | 32 | 17 | 2 | 31 | 21 | |
| Pittsburgh (5-2) | -1 | -3 | 7 | 27 | 3 | 25 | 27 | |
| West Virginia (5-2) | -3 | 3 | 3 | -11 | 4 | 8 | 21 | |
| Rutgers (3-4) | -32 | -7 | -3 | 31 | 4 | 20 | -18 | |
| South Florida (3-4) | -17 | -27 | 11 | -31 | -2 | 12 | 14 | |
| Uconn (3-4) | -2 | -3 | -4 | -4 | 2 | 13 | 25 | |
| Louisville (1-6) | -31 | -25 | -8 | -20 | -12 | -13 | 1 | |
| Syracuse (1-6) | -21 | -27 | -21 | 18 | -14 | -25 | -1 |
Just two upsets in the BigEast this year - South Florida over West Virginia, and Syracuse over Rutgers. Everything else went according to plan. Not much parity here, and Cincinnati is carrying the league right now.
| WAC 2009 - 6.3% upsets | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conf Standings | BoiseSt | Nevada | FresSt | Idaho | Hawaii | LATech | UtahSt | SanJSt | NMexSt |
| Boise State (8-0) | 11 | 17 | 38 | 45 | 10 | 31 | 38 | 35 | |
| Nevada (7-1) | -11 | 38 | 25 | 10 | 23 | 3 | 55 | 43 | |
| Fresno St (6-2) | -17 | -38 | 10 | 25 | 2 | 4 | 20 | 31 | |
| Idaho (4-4) | -38 | -25 | -10 | 12 | 1 | -3 | 4 | 15 | |
| Hawaii (3-5) | -45 | -10 | -25 | -12 | -21 | 13 | 7 | 18 | |
| LA Tech (3-5) | -10 | -23 | -2 | -1 | 21 | -2 | 35 | 38 | |
| Utah St (3-5) | -31 | -3 | -4 | 3 | -13 | 2 | 15 | -3 | |
| San Jose St (1-7) | -38 | -55 | -20 | -4 | -7 | -35 | -15 | 3 | |
| New Mexico St (1-7) | -35 | -43 | -31 | -15 | -18 | -38 | 3 | -3 |
...As is Boise State in the WAC. As usual. Even the upsets here weren't that big - 3-5 Utah State over 4-4 Idaho and losing to 1-7 New Mexico State.
| SunBelt 2009 - 5.9% upsets | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conf Standings | Troy | MidTNSt | LA-Mon | FlaAtl | LA-Laf | FlaIntl | ArkSt | N Texas | West KY |
| Troy (8-0) | 24 | 21 | 26 | 17 | 9 | 3 | 24 | 20 | |
| Mid TN St (7-1) | -24 | 19 | 7 | 17 | 27 | 24 | 16 | 38 | |
| LA-Monroe (5-3) | -21 | -19 | 2 | -4 | 13 | 6 | 27 | 3 | |
| Florida Atl. (5-3) | -26 | -7 | -2 | 22 | 7 | 17 | 4 | 6 | |
| LA-Lafayette (4-4) | -17 | -17 | 4 | -22 | -3 | 3 | 4 | 8 | |
| Florida Intl. (3-5) | -9 | -27 | -13 | -7 | 3 | -17 | 7 | 17 | |
| Arkansas St (3-5) | -3 | -24 | -6 | -17 | -3 | 17 | 4 | 4 | |
| North Texas (1-7) | -24 | -16 | -27 | -4 | -4 | -7 | -4 | 19 | |
| Western Kentucky (0-8) | -20 | -38 | -3 | -6 | -8 | -17 | -4 | -19 |
In the SunBelt, Troy & Middle Tennessee State led the way, while North Texas and Western Kentucky brought up the rear. A bunch of 3-5,4-4,5-3 teams in the middle, but none of the upsets were all that shocking.
| MtnWest 2009 - 0.0% upsets | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conf Standings | TCU | BYU | Utah | AForce | Wyom | UNLV | SanDSt | NewMex | ColoSt |
| TCU (8-0) | 31 | 27 | 3 | 35 | 41 | 43 | 41 | 38 | |
| BYU (7-1) | -31 | 3 | 17 | 52 | 38 | 10 | 5 | 19 | |
| Utah (6-2) | -27 | -3 | 7 | 12 | 20 | 31 | 31 | 7 | |
| Air Force (5-3) | -3 | -17 | -7 | 10 | 28 | 12 | 24 | 18 | |
| Wyoming (4-4) | -35 | -52 | -12 | -10 | 3 | 3 | 24 | 1 | |
| UNLV (3-5) | -41 | -38 | -20 | -28 | -3 | 4 | 17 | 19 | |
| San Diego St (2-6) | -43 | -10 | -31 | -12 | -3 | -4 | 3 | 14 | |
| New Mexico (1-7) | -41 | -5 | -31 | -24 | -24 | -17 | -3 | 2 | |
| Colorado St (0-8) | -38 | -19 | -7 | -18 | -1 | -19 | -14 | -2 |
And the perfectly unbalanced MtnWest. Not a single upset anywhere in the conference this year. Not to say some of the games weren't exciting and interesting - they were, especially between the teams at the top. But upsets they were not.
1 comment:
This is very good how increase the number in 2009, it can be better now!
Post a Comment