Conference Bowl Results

[CardLaw]

I suppose you could come up with any number of ways to measure how the conferences did relative to one another in the 2014-15 bowls. I prefer to try to maintain as much objectivity as possible. To that end, merely looking at the winning percentage of each conference makes some sense. To that end, a ranking of the conferences by bowl winning percentage nets the following:

CUSA .800
Pac 12 .750
Ind .667
SEC .583
Big 10 .500
MWC .429
AAC .400
MAC .400
ACC .364
Sun Belt .333
Big 12 .286

Now a subjective insertion. In my view the winning percentage is not necessarily completely indicative. A conference who attained a .400 record against better teams than another conference with the same record (it seems to me) had a better result. If we rank the pre-bowl combined winning percentages faced by each conference, we get the following:

Pac 12 .755
ACC .692
SEC .687
Big 12 .682
Big 10 .675
MAC .672
Ind .667
MWC .647
CUSA .619
SBC .595
AAC .559

By multiplying the winning percentage in bowl game results by the combined pre-bowl winning percentages of the collective opponents of each conference, we can get what I have dubbed a "quality score". Doing that yields the following ranking:

Pac 12 .566
CUSA .495
Ind .445
SEC .401
Big 10 .338
MWC .278
MAC .269
ACC .252
AAC .224
SBC .198
Big 12 .195

Based on those results, you would have to argue the Pac 12 is the better conference in the bowls this year. Extrapolating that to the season as a whole is a bit of taking liberties, but I can see the argument. on the other hand, the Big 12 had a horrible showing. During much of the it was asserted in some corners the Big 12 was a rival to the SEC. you certainly cannot support that argument on these number. Refuting it with these results is, again, taking a bit of a liberty.

 

[tkdcoach]

Originally posted by CardLaw:
I suppose you could come up with any number of ways to measure how the conferences did relative to one another in the 2014-15 bowls. I prefer to try to maintain as much objectivity as possible. To that end, merely looking at the winning percentage of each conference makes some sense. To that end, a ranking of the conferences by bowl winning percentage nets the following:

CUSA .800
Pac 12 .750
Ind .667
SEC .583
Big 10 .500
MWC .429
AAC .400
MAC .400
ACC .364
Sun Belt .333
Big 12 .286

Now a subjective insertion. In my view the winning percentage is not necessarily completely indicative. A conference who attained a .400 record against better teams than another conference with the same record (it seems to me) had a better result. If we rank the pre-bowl combined winning percentages faced by each conference, we get the following:

Pac 12 .755
ACC .692
SEC .687
Big 12 .682
Big 10 .675
MAC .672
Ind .667
MWC .647
CUSA .619
SBC .595
AAC .559

By multiplying the winning percentage in bowl game results by the combined pre-bowl winning percentages of the collective opponents of each conference, we can get what I have dubbed a "quality score". Doing that yields the following ranking:

Pac 12 .566
CUSA .495
Ind .445
SEC .401
Big 10 .338
MWC .278
MAC .269
ACC .252
AAC .224
SBC .198
Big 12 .195

Based on those results, you would have to argue the Pac 12 is the better conference in the bowls this year. Extrapolating that to the season as a whole is a bit of taking liberties, but I can see the argument. on the other hand, the Big 12 had a horrible showing. During much of the it was asserted in some corners the Big 12 was a rival to the SEC. you certainly cannot support that argument on these number. Refuting it with these results is, again, taking a bit of a liberty.

nice post (for a 'Bama fan) thanks! ;-P

I guess the thing that jumps out at me is that every conference has a crappy lower end because we cannot all be "winners."

I guess it's likely that when most of us think of the relative power of a conference we generally means (approx.) the upper third of said conference. This leads to a lot of skewing, false premises, and so forth one supposes.


Having lived out West and attended home games at Stanford (5x), Cal (2x..both prior to renovation of their stadium), and at UCLA, I've always believed that PAC football is a going concern...Oregon's notable BCS breakdowns notwithstanding. It's a good conference for football and we should all keep that in mind moving forward. The ACC should probably set its sights on being better than the PAC rather than getting too caught up in the regional muddle vs. the SEC which in any case gets at least some yearly proof.

Anyway, thanks for the numbers, very thought provoking. I just hope that we can do a good job holding up our end of the bargain over time.

 

[Guardman]

Law's numbers are mathematically challenged. (Oh, this sounds like fun --- Let's multiply the angle of the dangle times the square root of the mass of the brain of the lawyer). At least, Law, you tried. But, try to stay away from relevant numerical analysis. But I surely do welcome your thoughts and comments, otherwise.

 

[CardVille]

Like the analysis but %'s dont tell the whole story. The ACC was ahead in at least 4 of those games they lost and blew it. They could easily have been .727 (8-3). Other conferences could have been in the same situation. Would love to see the numbers based on 9pt (2 possession or more) wins excluding close games.

Edited with numbers in 2poss or more games: [slow day at work]

Pac 12 3-0 (1.000)
CUSA 3-1 (.750)
SEC 4-2 (.667)
ACC 3-3 (.500)
Sun Belt 1-1 (.500)
Mountain West 2-3 (.400)
Big 12 1-2 (.333)
MAC 1-2 (.333)
B1G 1-4 (.200)
American 0-1 (.000)


This post was edited on 1/6 1:54 PM by CardVille

 

[zipp_rivals]

What are those bowl winning percentages against the point spreads? That's another way to adjust for the difficulty of the opponent.

Regular season games are also biased by the home-away variable. How many SEC teams, for example, played a P5 team at the opponent's stadium? In addition to the annual rivalry games, I recall Auburn at Kansas State. And there are the games played between the Big Ten and Pac 12 schools. I'd count ND's games like ours. Of course, point spreads should factor that variable as well...