Skip to main content

Power 5 Conference Breakdown Update

ACC
Bowl eligible teams: 11 of 14 (78.6%)
Bowl record: 8-3 (.727)
Record vs. Power 5: 15-9 (.625)

15 wins
4 home, 3 away, 8 neutral
ACC teams: 143-56 (.719)
ACC opponents: 111-83 (.572)
Difference: +0.147
Combined score: 552-299 (average of 36.8 - 19.9 = +16.9)

9 losses
2 home, 3 away, 4 neutral
ACC teams: 66-50 (.569)
ACC opponents: 70-45 (.609)
Difference: -0.040
Combined score: 219-317 (average of 24.3 - 35.2 = -10.9)

Overall
6 home, 6 away, 12 neutral
ACC teams: 209-106 (.663)
ACC opponents: 181-128 (.586)
Difference: +0.077
Combined score: 771-616 (average of 32.1 - 25.7 = +6.4)


Big XII
Bowl eligible teams: 6 of 10 (60.0%)
Bowl record: 4-2 (.667)
Record vs. Power 5: 5-8 (.385)

5 wins
2 home, 0 away, 3 neutral
Big XII teams: 50-15 (.769)
Big XII opponents: 38-27 (.585)
Difference: +0.184
Combined score: 177-104 (average of 35.4 - 20.8 = +14.6)

8 losses
2 home, 4 away, 2 neutral
Big XII teams: 55-46 (.545)
Big XII opponents: 63-39 (.618)
Difference: -0.073
Combined score: 213-334 (average of 26.6 - 41.8 = -15.2)

Overall
4 home, 4 away, 5 neutral
Big XII teams: 105-61 (.633)
Big XII opponents: 101-66 (.605)
Difference: +0.028
Combined score: 390-438 (average of 30.0 - 33.7 = -3.7)


Big Ten
Bowl eligible teams: 10 of 14 (71.4%)
Bowl record: 3-7 (.300)
Record vs. Power 5: 9-11 (.450)

9 wins
5 home, 1 away, 3 neutral
Big Ten teams: 81-37 (.686)
Big Ten opponents: 60-53 (.531)
Difference: +0.155
Combined score: 285-173 (average of 31.7 - 19.2 = +12.5)

11 losses
2 home, 2 away, 7 neutral
Big Ten teams: 83-60 (.580)
Big Ten opponents: 102-43  (.703)
Difference: -0.123
Combined score: 265-417 (24.1 - 37.9 = -13.8)

Overall
7 home, 3 away, 10 neutral
Big Ten teams: 164-97 (.628)
Big Ten opponents: 162-96 (.628)
Difference: +/-0.000
Combined score: 550-590 (average of 27.5 - 29.5 = -2.0)


Pac-12
Bowl eligible teams: 6 of 10 (60.0%)
Bowl record: 3-3 (.500)
Record vs. Power 5: 8-8 (.500)

8 wins
5 home, 0 away, 3 neutral
Pac-12 teams: 63-37 (.630)
Pac-12 opponents: 48-53 (.475)
Difference: +0.155
Combined score: 339-246 (average of 42.4 - 30.8 = +11.6)

8 losses
0 home, 4 away, 4 neutral
Pac-12 teams: 62-42 (.596)
Pac-12 opponents: 83-23 (.783)
Difference: -0.187
Combined score: 140-272 (average of 17.5 - 34.0 = -16.5)

Overall
5 home, 4 away, 7 neutral
Pac-12 teams: 125-79 (.613)
Pac-12 opponents: 131-76 (.633)
Difference: -0.020
Combined score: 479-518 (average of 29.9 - 32.4 = -2.5)


SEC
Bowl eligible teams: 11 of 14 (78.6%)
Bowl record: 6-6 (.500)
Record vs. Power 5: 11-13 (.458)

11 wins
2 home, 2 away, 7 neutral
SEC teams: 101-43 (.701)
SEC opponents: 91-53 (.632)
Difference: +0.069
Combined score: 395-220 (average of 35.9 - 20.0 = +15.9)

13 losses
2 home, 4 away, 7 neutral
SEC teams: 90-76 (.542)
SEC opponents: 131-41 (.762)
Difference: -0.220
Combined score: 232-436 (average of 17.8 - 33.5 = -15.7)

Overall
4 home, 6 away, 14 neutral
SEC teams: 191-119 (.616)
SEC opponents: 222-94 (.703)
Difference: -0.087
Combined score: 627-656 (average of 26.1 - 27.3 = -1.2)


Bowl eligibles
1) ACC: 78.6%
1) SEC: 78.6%
3) Big Ten: 71.4%
4) Big XII: 60.0%
4) Pac-12: 60.0%

Bowl record
1) ACC: .727
2) Big XII; ..667
3) Pac-12: .500
3) SEC: .500
5) Big Ten: .300

Record vs. Power 5
1) ACC: .625
2) Pac-12: .500
3) SEC: .458
4) Big Ten: .450
5) Big XII: .385

Overall Record Differential
1) SEC: -0.087
2) Pac-12: -0.020
3) Big Ten: +/-0.000
4) Big XII: +0.028
5) ACC: +0.077

Combined score
1) ACC: +6.4
2) SEC: -1.2
3) Big Ten: -2.0
4) Pac-12: -2.5
5) Big XII: -3.7

Home games
1) SEC: 20.8%
2) ACC: 25.0%
3) Big XII: 30.8%
4) Pac-12: 31.3%
5) Big Ten: 35.0%

Overall
1) ACC: 11 (out of a possible 30/tie-breaker: 8-4 vs. SEC)
2) SEC: 11 (out of 30)
3) Pac-12: 19 (out of 30)
4) Big Ten: 23 (out of 30/tie-breaker: 2-0 vs. Big XII)
5) Big XII: 23 (out of 30)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"