BCS Conference Comparison .......FINAL Including All Bowl Results!
Bowl season is over so we can incorporate those results and determine our final BCS Conference Champion.
The SEC wins the bowl season with a 7.5 - 3 points record, better than the PAC's 4-2 record. However, by a .625 to .623 margin, the PAC holds on to win the overall BCSCC title! The Big 12 had a good bowl season, having a 4-3 points result, and the ACC, thanks to BCS Champion FSU and Orange Bowl champ Clemson, manages the third best bowl performance, going 6-6 overall. Both the Big 12 and the ACC notched two "quality wins" (a win vs a top-15 opponent), thanks to FSU beating #2 Auburn and Clemson beating #4 Ohio State. The Big 12 also got two quality wins, thanks to Texas Tech's upset of #13 ASU and Oklahoma beating #3 Alabama. Between them, the Big 12 and SEC got 3 quality wins, and none of them were by their conference champion (Missouri beat #12 Oklahoma State). Ironically, the PAC was the only AQ conference not to have a quality win, and three of their bowl wins did not count because they came against non-AQ, non-ranked competition. The PAC had a poor bowl season despite their record, because they played very soft competition.
At the bottom, the AAC was a respectable 2.5-3, led by Fiesta Bowl Champion UCF. It's clear now that both UCF and Louisville we top-15 caliber teams capable of playing with anyone.
Finally, the B1G faded badly, going 2.5-5 in bowl season, but still clings to the #3 position.
BCS Conference Comparison standings
Overall Standings.........BOWL Results
Conference ……………… Wins …........................………… Losses ………Overall Season Record (Previous week's rankings)
1) PAC…………............SC,OR,AZ,UCL...........…….....ASU,ST...........................15-9...........................(1,1,2,2,2,2,2,1,1,1,1,1,4,4)
2) SEC…………....…TM,MZ+,LS,VD,SC,OLE,MSS,.........AL,AU,UGA...................21.5-13.................... (2,2,1,1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,1)
3) B1G……………...........NB,MSU+,..........…….…......WI,OS,MN,MCH,IWA,...........13.5-16.............. (3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,4,4,4,3,1,2)
4) ACC……………......…Pitt,NC, SYR,FSU+,CL+...............MD,MIA,GT,BC,VT,DK.....17-21...................(4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,3,3,3,4,3,3)
5) Big 12……………….........KST,TT+,OK+.............………..TX,BAY,OKST.....………...8-13....................(5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5, 5,5,5,5,5)
6) American …………....…UL,UCF+.........................RT,CIN,HOU..................….5.5-26..................(6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6)
+ 1.5 credit for quality win (see below)
* -2 for awful loss (see below)
Here is the method I use to determine wins and losses to rank the conferences:
1) A conference gets credit for a win if a member beats an OOC opponent, so long as the OOC opponent is (a) from another AQ conference, (b) Notre Dame, or © is from a non-AQ conference but is ranked in the AP or Coaches poll at the time the game was played, including the "others receiving votes" category. The purpose is to weed-out wins against basket-case competition, rent-a-wins, and the like.
2) A conference gets credit for 1.5 wins if the win is against any OOC team ranked in the AP and Coaches top 15 at the time the game was played. This is a bonus for a “quality win”.
3) A conference gets tagged with a loss if a member loses against any OOC opponent.
4) If the opponent lost to is FCS, then the conference is tagged with two losses. This is a penalty for an “awful loss”.
5) Conference rank is based on overall winning percentage, if winning percentage is equal the conference with more wins is ranked ahead.
As can be seen, there is a bias towards counting losses but not wins so a high winning % is hard to achieve. If a conference plays 10 OOC opponents and wins them all, but all are non-AQ and none are ranked in either poll, the conference's record will be 0-0, not 10-0. My system is based on the notion that such wins are essentially white noise, useless for determining AQ conference strength.
(This post was last modified: 01-12-2014 11:16 AM by quo vadis.)
|