Skip to main content

College Football Conference Strength Rankings... going into the bowl games...

Going into the bowl games, here is a rundown of how I rank the six major conferences. The rankings could change depending on the bowl outcomes, of course. First off, I'll run down the conference standings. To the left of the team's standing in the conference will read one of the following symbols: * (bowl eligible) or x (bowl ineligible) (? for UCLA). Here we go...

ACC
*1. Virginia Tech (11-2)
*2. Clemson (10-3)
*3. Florida State (8-4)
*3. Georgia Tech (8-4)
*3. Virginia (8-4)
*6. North Carolina (7-5)
*6. North Carolina State (7-5)
*8. Miami (Florida) (6-6)
*8. Wake Forest (6-6)
x10. Boston College (4-8)
x11. Duke (3-9)
x12. Maryland (2-10)

Big XII
*1. Oklahoma State (11-1)
*2. Kansas State (10-2)
*3. Baylor (9-3)
*3. Oklahoma (9-3)
*5. Missouri (7-5)
*5. Texas (7-5)
*7. Iowa State (6-6)
*7. Texas A&M (6-6)
x9. Texas Tech (5-7)
x10. Kansas (2-10)

Big East
*1. Cincinnati (9-3)
*1. West Virginia (9-3)
*3. Rutgers (8-4)
*4. Louisville (7-5)
*5. Pittsburgh (6-6)
x6. Connecticut (5-7)
x6. South Florida (5-7)
x6. Syracuse (5-7)

Big Ten
*1. Wisconsin (11-2)
*2. Michigan (10-2)
*3. Michigan State (10-3)
*4. Nebraska (9-3)
*4. Penn State (9-3)
*6. Iowa (7-5)
*7. Illinois (6-6)
*7. Northwestern (6-6)
*7. Ohio State (6-6)
*7. Purdue (6-6)
x11. Minnesota (3-9)
x12. Indiana (1-11)

Pac-12
*1. Stanford (11-1)
*2. Oregon (11-2)
*2. USC (10-2)
*4. California (7-5)
*4. Utah (7-5)
*4. Washington (7-5)
*7. Arizona State (6-6)
?7. UCLA (6-7)
x9. Arizona (4-8)
x9. Washington State (4-8)
x11. Oregon State (3-9)
x12. Colorado (3-10)

SEC
*1. LSU (13-0)
*2. Alabama (11-1)
*3. Arkansas (10-2)
*3. South Carolina (10-2)
*5. Georgia (10-3)
*6. Auburn (7-5)
*7. Florida (6-6)
*7. Mississippi State (6-6)
*7. Vanderbilt (6-6)
x10. Kentucky (5-7)
x10. Tennessee (5-7)
x12. Mississippi (2-10)

To rank the conferences, I've ranked the six conferences in five different categories:

1) Win/loss record versus the other AQ (automatic qualifier) conferences
2) Percentage of non-conference games versus AQ conference teams
3) Record of teams in wins versus AQ conferences
4) Record of teams in losses versus AQ conferences
5) Percentage of games versus I-AA teams

I sorted through all the statistics and ranked the six conferences in the before-mentioned five categories. I then devised a formula by ranking the categories by importance.

1) I saw the win/loss record versus the other AQ conferences as being the most important, so I multiplied the conferences' ranking by 2.50.

2) The record of teams in wins versus AQ conferences I saw as second most important and I'll multiply the conferences' ranking by 2.00.

3) The third most important category as far as I see it is the record of teams in losses versus AQ conferences. I multiply the ranking by 1.50.

4) The percentage of non-conference games versus AQ conference teams is fourth most important from my vantage point and I multiply the ranking by 1.00.

5) Lastly is the percentage of non-conference games against I-AA opponents. I multiply these rankings by 0.50.

I then added up the five scores, the lowest of which will rank #1 in term's of conference strength and the highest which will rank last or 6th in this case. I'll now run down the statistics category by category from one through five based on importance.

Record vs. AQ Conference Teams
1. SEC: 9-3 (.750)
2. Big XII: 6-3 (.667)
3. Big Ten: 6-5 (.545)
4. Pac-12: 6-7 (.463)
5. ACC: 8-10 (.444)
6. Big East: 4-10 (.286)

Record of Teams in Wins vs. AQ Conferences
1. SEC: 73-37 (.664)
2. Big XII: 36-37 (.493)
3. ACC: 42-54 (.438)
4. Big East: 20-28 (.417)
5. Big Ten: 29-44 (.397)
6. Pac-12: 27-46 (.370)

Record of Teams in Losses vs. AQ Conferences
1. Pac-12: 65-22 (.747)
2. ACC: 86-36 (.705)
3. Big Ten: 41-19 (.683)
4. SEC: 25-12 (.676)
5. Big XII: 24-12 (.667)
6. Big East: 74-47 (.612)

Percentage of Non-Conference Games vs. AQ Conference Teams
1. ACC: 18/48 (37.5%)
2. Pac-12: 13/36 (36.1%)
3. Big East: 14/40 (35.0%)
4. Big XII: 9/30 (30.0%)
5. SEC: 12/48 (25.0%)
6. Big Ten: 11/48 (22.9%)

Percentage of Games vs. 1-AA Teams
1. Big XII: 6/30 (20.0%)
1. Big East: 8/40 (20.0%)
3. Big Ten: 10/48 (20.8%)
4. Pac-12: 8/36 (22.2%)
5. SEC: 12/48 (25.0%)
6. ACC: 13/48 (27.1%)

Here are how I attained the final sums:

ACC: 12.50 (5 * 2.50) + 6.00 (3 * 2.00) + 3.00 (2 * 1.50) + 1.00 (1 * 1.00) + 3.00 (6 * 0.50) = 25.50
Big XII: 5.00 (2 * 2.50) + 4.00 (2 * 2.00) + 7.50 (5 * 1.50) + 4.00 (4 * 1.00) + 0.50 (1 * 0.50) = 22.00
Big East: 15.00 (6 * 2.50) + 8.00 (4 * 2.00) + 9.00 (6 * 1.50) + 3.00 (3 * 1.00) + 0.50 (1 * 0.50) = 35.50
Big Ten: 7.50 (3 * 2.50) + 10.00 (5 * 2.00) + 4.50 (3 * 1.50) + 6.00 (6 * 1.00) + 1.50 (3 * 0.50) = 29.50
Pac-12: 10.00 (4 * 2.50) + 12.00 (6 * 2.00) + 1.50 (1 * 1.50) + 2.00 (2 * 1.00) + 2.00 (4 * 0.50) = 27.50
SEC: 2.50 (1 * 2.50) + 2.00 (1 * 2.00) + 6.00 (4 * 1.50) + 5.00 (5 * 1.00) + 2.50 (5 * 0.50) = 18.00

The final rankings are as follows:

1. SEC (18.00)
2. Big XII (22.00)
3. ACC (25.50)
4. Pac-12 (27.50)
5. Big Ten (29.50)
6. Big East (35.50)

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!"