Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Phil Steele 2017 Conference Rankings for Football...
Author Message
Jjoey52 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 555
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation: 20
I Root For: ISU
Location:
Post: #11
Phil Steele 2017 Conference Rankings for Football...
I am too lazy to look it up, but I would imagine the MW has won at least 60% of games between the leagues for the last 20 years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
07-11-2017 05:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RutgersGuy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,088
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #12
RE: Phil Steele 2017 Conference Rankings for Football...
(07-11-2017 05:42 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  I am too lazy to look it up, but I would imagine the MW has won at least 60% of games between the leagues for the last 20 years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And that has zero barring on the future. The ACC went something like 2-13 in BCS bowls and since have won a NC and played in another.
07-11-2017 06:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kittonhead Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,346
Joined: Jun 2013
Reputation: 85
I Root For: Beat Matisse
Location:
Post: #13
RE: Phil Steele 2017 Conference Rankings for Football...
(07-11-2017 05:42 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  I am too lazy to look it up, but I would imagine the MW has won at least 60% of games between the leagues for the last 20 years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This is MWC 2.0 though, a different beast.
07-11-2017 06:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Colonel Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,100
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation: 30
I Root For: WMU Broncos
Location: Jefferson City, MO
Post: #14
RE: Phil Steele 2017 Conference Rankings for Football...
(07-11-2017 05:42 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  I am too lazy to look it up, but I would imagine the MW has won at least 60% of games between the leagues for the last 20 years.

Below are MAC-MW head-to-head results since 1999 (first season of the MW), broken down a few different ways. First, a breakdown of the research criteria:

- MW members as of 1999: AF, CSU, UNLV, NM, SDSU, WYO
- MW member as of 2011: BOISE
- MW members as of 2012: FRES, HAW, NEV
- MW members as of 2013: SJS, USU
- (all current MAC schools were in the MAC in 1999)

MAC members vs. MW members, 1999-2016:
- 2000: @WYO beat CMU (MW 1-0 head-to-head)
- 2002: @CMU beat WYO (1-1); @TOL beat UNLV (1-2)
- 2003: MIA won @CSU (1-3); @UNLV beat TOL (2-3)
- 2007: WYO won @OHIO (3-3)
- 2008: @WYO beat OHIO (4-3); BG won @WYO (4-4)
- 2010: @MIA beat CSU (4-5); WYO won @TOL (5-5)
- 2011: BOISE won @TOL (6-5); WYO won @BG (7-5); Bowl: TOL beat AF (7-6)
- 2012: @BOISE beat MIA (8-6); @TOL beat WYO (8-7)
- 2013: @UNLV beat CMU (9-7); Bowl: SDSU beat BUF (10-7); Bowl: USU beat NIU (11-7)
- 2014: NIU won @UNLV (11-8); Bowl: AF beat WMU (12-8)
- 2015: @NIU beat UNLV (12-9); EMU won @WYO (12-10); NEV won @BUF (13-10); Bowl: BOISE beat NIU (14-10); Bowl: AKR beat USU (14-11)
- 2016: SDSU won @NIU (15-11); @WYO beat NIU (16-11); @EMU beat WYO (16-12); @TOL beat FRES (16-13); @NEV beat BUF (17-13); @CMU beat UNLV (17-14)

What to take from these results/Trends of note:
- From 1999-2016, the MW was 17-14 (.548) vs. the MAC.
- The MW was 4-2 (.667) vs. the MAC in bowl games * (* most bowl games played at MW venues).
- Since 2013 (when both conferences contained all current members), the MW is 9-7 (.563) vs. the MAC.
- Over the past two seasons (by far the two seasons with the most head-to-head matchups), the MW was 5-6 (.454) vs. the MAC.

My interpretation: the numbers give the MW a slight edge over the MAC, but it's not much of a gap and not nearly as wide a gap as I thought it would be prior to compiling these results.

Also worth noting: BYU (1999-2011), Utah (1999-2011), and TCU (2005-2011) were briefly in the MW; Marshall (1999-2004), UCF (2002-2004), Temple (2007-2011), and UMass (2012-2014) were briefly in the MAC. There were only three head-to-head results involving these schools during their time as conference members: Marshall beat BYU in 1999 (bowl), TCU beat NIU in 2006 (bowl), and Temple beat Wyoming in 2011 (bowl), giving the MAC a 2-1 edge. These results were insignificant enough that I decided not to include them above.
07-12-2017 12:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CardinalJim Offline
Welcome to The New Age
*

Posts: 7,281
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 616
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Planet Red
Post: #15
RE: Phil Steele 2017 Conference Rankings for Football...
(07-10-2017 08:53 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(07-09-2017 08:35 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  MAC > MWC

That's a pretty hard gut shot.

Top MWC teams are probably (?) better than top MAC teams, but conference average could go either way.
Nobody talks about the bottom teams much.

That's a good point. Historically that's what has made The SEC and Big Ten so good for so many years. How competitive the middle and bottom of their conferences are seldom points of discussion.
CJ
07-12-2017 04:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,577
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 468
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #16
RE: Phil Steele 2017 Conference Rankings for Football...
(07-12-2017 04:21 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  
(07-10-2017 08:53 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(07-09-2017 08:35 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  MAC > MWC

That's a pretty hard gut shot.

Top MWC teams are probably (?) better than top MAC teams, but conference average could go either way.
Nobody talks about the bottom teams much.

That's a good point. Historically that's what has made The SEC and Big Ten so good for so many years. How competitive the middle and bottom of their conferences are seldom points of discussion.
CJ

The bottom of the SEC hasn't been particularly good. The bottom of the Big 10 has been awful. The middle of the Big 10 hasn't been good for about a dozen years. Now the middle of the SEC has been very strong. Its the Pac 12 that gets underrated despite a strong middle and bottom.
07-12-2017 08:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jjoey52 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 555
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation: 20
I Root For: ISU
Location:
Post: #17
Phil Steele 2017 Conference Rankings for Football...
(07-12-2017 12:16 AM)The Colonel Wrote:  
(07-11-2017 05:42 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  I am too lazy to look it up, but I would imagine the MW has won at least 60% of games between the leagues for the last 20 years.

Below are MAC-MW head-to-head results since 1999 (first season of the MW), broken down a few different ways. First, a breakdown of the research criteria:

- MW members as of 1999: AF, CSU, UNLV, NM, SDSU, WYO
- MW member as of 2011: BOISE
- MW members as of 2012: FRES, HAW, NEV
- MW members as of 2013: SJS, USU
- (all current MAC schools were in the MAC in 1999)

MAC members vs. MW members, 1999-2016:
- 2000: @WYO beat CMU (MW 1-0 head-to-head)
- 2002: @CMU beat WYO (1-1); @TOL beat UNLV (1-2)
- 2003: MIA won @CSU (1-3); @UNLV beat TOL (2-3)
- 2007: WYO won @OHIO (3-3)
- 2008: @WYO beat OHIO (4-3); BG won @WYO (4-4)
- 2010: @MIA beat CSU (4-5); WYO won @TOL (5-5)
- 2011: BOISE won @TOL (6-5); WYO won @BG (7-5); Bowl: TOL beat AF (7-6)
- 2012: @BOISE beat MIA (8-6); @TOL beat WYO (8-7)
- 2013: @UNLV beat CMU (9-7); Bowl: SDSU beat BUF (10-7); Bowl: USU beat NIU (11-7)
- 2014: NIU won @UNLV (11-8); Bowl: AF beat WMU (12-8)
- 2015: @NIU beat UNLV (12-9); EMU won @WYO (12-10); NEV won @BUF (13-10); Bowl: BOISE beat NIU (14-10); Bowl: AKR beat USU (14-11)
- 2016: SDSU won @NIU (15-11); @WYO beat NIU (16-11); @EMU beat WYO (16-12); @TOL beat FRES (16-13); @NEV beat BUF (17-13); @CMU beat UNLV (17-14)

What to take from these results/Trends of note:
- From 1999-2016, the MW was 17-14 (.548) vs. the MAC.
- The MW was 4-2 (.667) vs. the MAC in bowl games * (* most bowl games played at MW venues).
- Since 2013 (when both conferences contained all current members), the MW is 9-7 (.563) vs. the MAC.
- Over the past two seasons (by far the two seasons with the most head-to-head matchups), the MW was 5-6 (.454) vs. the MAC.

My interpretation: the numbers give the MW a slight edge over the MAC, but it's not much of a gap and not nearly as wide a gap as I thought it would be prior to compiling these results.

Also worth noting: BYU (1999-2011), Utah (1999-2011), and TCU (2005-2011) were briefly in the MW; Marshall (1999-2004), UCF (2002-2004), Temple (2007-2011), and UMass (2012-2014) were briefly in the MAC. There were only three head-to-head results involving these schools during their time as conference members: Marshall beat BYU in 1999 (bowl), TCU beat NIU in 2006 (bowl), and Temple beat Wyoming in 2011 (bowl), giving the MAC a 2-1 edge. These results were insignificant enough that I decided not to include them above.


Thx, Colonel, not as big a disparity as I thought there would be.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
07-12-2017 01:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dbackjon Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,042
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 180
I Root For: NAU/Illini
Location:
Post: #18
RE: Phil Steele 2017 Conference Rankings for Football...
(07-12-2017 01:41 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  
(07-12-2017 12:16 AM)The Colonel Wrote:  
(07-11-2017 05:42 PM)Jjoey52 Wrote:  I am too lazy to look it up, but I would imagine the MW has won at least 60% of games between the leagues for the last 20 years.

Below are MAC-MW head-to-head results since 1999 (first season of the MW), broken down a few different ways. First, a breakdown of the research criteria:

- MW members as of 1999: AF, CSU, UNLV, NM, SDSU, WYO
- MW member as of 2011: BOISE
- MW members as of 2012: FRES, HAW, NEV
- MW members as of 2013: SJS, USU
- (all current MAC schools were in the MAC in 1999)

MAC members vs. MW members, 1999-2016:
- 2000: @WYO beat CMU (MW 1-0 head-to-head)
- 2002: @CMU beat WYO (1-1); @TOL beat UNLV (1-2)
- 2003: MIA won @CSU (1-3); @UNLV beat TOL (2-3)
- 2007: WYO won @OHIO (3-3)
- 2008: @WYO beat OHIO (4-3); BG won @WYO (4-4)
- 2010: @MIA beat CSU (4-5); WYO won @TOL (5-5)
- 2011: BOISE won @TOL (6-5); WYO won @BG (7-5); Bowl: TOL beat AF (7-6)
- 2012: @BOISE beat MIA (8-6); @TOL beat WYO (8-7)
- 2013: @UNLV beat CMU (9-7); Bowl: SDSU beat BUF (10-7); Bowl: USU beat NIU (11-7)
- 2014: NIU won @UNLV (11-8); Bowl: AF beat WMU (12-8)
- 2015: @NIU beat UNLV (12-9); EMU won @WYO (12-10); NEV won @BUF (13-10); Bowl: BOISE beat NIU (14-10); Bowl: AKR beat USU (14-11)
- 2016: SDSU won @NIU (15-11); @WYO beat NIU (16-11); @EMU beat WYO (16-12); @TOL beat FRES (16-13); @NEV beat BUF (17-13); @CMU beat UNLV (17-14)

What to take from these results/Trends of note:
- From 1999-2016, the MW was 17-14 (.548) vs. the MAC.
- The MW was 4-2 (.667) vs. the MAC in bowl games * (* most bowl games played at MW venues).
- Since 2013 (when both conferences contained all current members), the MW is 9-7 (.563) vs. the MAC.
- Over the past two seasons (by far the two seasons with the most head-to-head matchups), the MW was 5-6 (.454) vs. the MAC.

My interpretation: the numbers give the MW a slight edge over the MAC, but it's not much of a gap and not nearly as wide a gap as I thought it would be prior to compiling these results.

Also worth noting: BYU (1999-2011), Utah (1999-2011), and TCU (2005-2011) were briefly in the MW; Marshall (1999-2004), UCF (2002-2004), Temple (2007-2011), and UMass (2012-2014) were briefly in the MAC. There were only three head-to-head results involving these schools during their time as conference members: Marshall beat BYU in 1999 (bowl), TCU beat NIU in 2006 (bowl), and Temple beat Wyoming in 2011 (bowl), giving the MAC a 2-1 edge. These results were insignificant enough that I decided not to include them above.


Thx, Colonel, not as big a disparity as I thought there would be.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Part of it is the way he is counting it - using only years in the MWC. If you added all of Boise's years from 1999-2010, you add an 8-0 record vs the MAC.
07-12-2017 02:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Jjoey52 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 555
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation: 20
I Root For: ISU
Location:
Post: #19
Phil Steele 2017 Conference Rankings for Football...
Thx, Jon, makes me feel a bit better


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
07-12-2017 05:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frog in the Kitchen Sink Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,469
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 128
I Root For: TCU
Location:
Post: #20
RE: Phil Steele 2017 Conference Rankings for Football...
(07-08-2017 11:36 AM)Maize Wrote:  
(07-08-2017 10:37 AM)TheChosenOne Wrote:  Curious how your rankings are calculated. Above list SEC as #1 however the article leads one to believe this isn't the case. "For the first time in 10 years, the SEC did not take home that title.". I do not have ESPN insider so plausible the actual article supports your commentary

Wasn't my commentary....what was posted was the last paragraph in the Phil Steele article...this is now he broke it down...copy & paste from the article:

The first group: the top three teams' average power rating. The SEC came out on top with Alabama, Auburn and Florida. The ACC's top three of Florida State, Clemson and Miami ranked second. The Big Ten's trio of Ohio State, Penn State and Wisconsin came in third.

The Pac-12's USC, Washington and Stanford were a close fourth.

Showing how close the conferences are this year, the average Power Poll power rating for the SEC's top three is 134.77, and the Big Ten's is 134.09.

The next group was the top five teams of each league. The Power 5 teams remained the same.

The next group included the top eight teams of each conference. In this category, the Pac-12 showed better depth in teams six through eight, and got past the Big Ten. The Group of 5 conferences held up in the same order.

The toughest conference is not just about strength at the top -- it's also about which ones have better depth, and fewer weak teams at the bottom.

The next category to look at is the overall average power ratings. This gives as much weight to the weakest team in the conference as it does the top team. Here, the ACC jumped back up to the No. 2 spot, and the Big 12, with just 10 teams, climbed up to No. 3. The Big Ten was last of the Power 5 leagues. The Group of 5 numbers held steady.

Not to make too big a deal out of it, but his methodology has an inherent bias in favor of larger conferences, FWIW. By taking top 3, top 5, top 8, etc instead of top 20%, top 40%, top 60% or whatever it follows that more of the weaker teams will be included in each part his analysis from the Big 12 than the 14 team conferences. For example, the 80th percentile team in the Big 12 is part of the "top 8" rankings while the 80th persntile team in the ACC is around the number 11 team and is not (and neither is the 9th or 10th, for that matter). A higher percentage of the weaker teams in the Big 12 enter into his groupings than the larger conferences.
07-12-2017 05:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2017 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2017 MyBB Group.