CSNbbs

Full Version: WAC-MAC comparison
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Please check my numbers for accuarcy - it's late and I'm a bit tired (and annoyed). This WAC poster claimed that the MAC was a step behind the WAC (and that somehow the WAC was in-step with the MWC and C-USA in FB). I posted that the MAC top5 out-performs the WAC top5 and was told by "JJ" that I was way off....

Let me know if you find any errors.

By the numbers 1997-2002 - using only present members of each conference (not members that are now with other conferences) because that's how one would compare the top5 in today's WAC with the top5 in today's MAC. I used the top5 for each year, not the top5 over the period.....

2002:
WAC10: BoiseSt (12-1) (1-1), Hawaii (10-4) (0-1), FresnoSt (9-5) (1-3), SJSU (6-7)(1-2), Nevada (5-7)(0-1)
TOTALS: 42-24 (.636) 3-8 vs BCS (.273)
MAC14: Marshall (11-2)(0-1), BGSU (9-3)(2-0), Toledo (9-5)(0-3), NoIll (8-4)(1-1), Miami(OH)(7-5)(1-2)
TOTALS: 44-19 (.698), 4-7 vs BCS (.363)
ADVANTAGE: MAC - Better overall record, better vs BCS record

2001:
WAC10: FresnoSt (11-3) (3-1), Hawaii (9-3) (0-0), BoiseSt (8-4) (0-2)
Rice (8-4)(1-1), LaTech (7-5)(0-4)
TOTALS: 43-19 (.694), 4-8 vs BCS (.333)
MAC13: Marshall (11-2)(0-1), Toledo (10.2)(2-0), BGSU (8-3)(3-0), Miami(OH)(7-5)(0-2), NoIll (6-5)(0-2)
TOTALS: 42-17 (.712), 5-5 vs BCS (.500)
ADVANTAGE: MAC - Better overall record, MUCH better vs BCS record

2000:
WAC8: BoiseSt (10-2) (0-1), UTEP (8-4)(0-2), FresnoSt (7-5) (1-2), SJSU (7-5) (1-2), Tulsa (5-7)(0-2)
TOTALS: 37-23 (.617), 2-9 vs BCS (.182)
MAC13: Toledo (10-1)(1-0), WestMich (9-3)(1-1), Marshall (8-5)(0-2), Ohio (7-4) (1-1), UCF(7-4) (1-1)
TOTALS: 41-17 (.707), 4-5 vs BCS (.444)
ADVANTAGE: MAC - Better overall record, MUCH better vs BCS record

1999:
WAC8: BoiseSt (10-3) (0-1), Hawaii (9-4) (1-2), LaTech (8-3) (1-3), FresnoSt (8-5) (0-2), Rice (5-6)(0-2)
TOTALS: 40-21 (.656), 2-10 vs BCS (.167)
MAC13: Marshall (13-0)(2-0), Miami(OH) (7-4)(1-1), Akron (7-4)(1-1), WMU (7-5)(0-2), Toledo (6-5)(0-1)
TOTALS: 40-18 (.690), 4-5 vs BCS (.444)
ADVANTAGE: MAC - Better overall record, MUCH better vs BCS record

1998:
WAC16: BoiseSt (6-5) (0-1), Nevada (6-5) (0-1), LaTech (6-6) (0-3), FresnoSt (5-6)(0-2), Rice (5-6)(0-3)
TOTALS: 28-28 (.500), 0-10 vs BCS (.000)
MAC12: Marshall (12-1)(1-0), Miami(OH) (10-1)(1-0), UCF (9-2)(0-2), WestMich (7-4)(1-1), Toledo (7-5)(1-1)
TOTALS: 45-13 (.776), 4-4 vs BCS (.500)
ADVANTAGE: MAC - MUCH better overall record, MUCH better vs BCS record

1997:
WAC16: LaTech (9-2) (1-3), Rice (7-4) (0-2), SMU (6-5) (1-1), FresnoSt (6-6)(0-2), BoiseSt (5-6)(0-2)
TOTALS: 33-23 (.589), 2-10 vs BCS (.167)
MAC12: Marshall (10-3)(0-2), Toledo (9-3)(1-0), WestMich (8-3)(1-1), Miami(OH)(8-3)(1-0). Ohio (8-3)(1-1)
TOTALS: 43-15 (.741), 4-4 vs BCS (.500)
ADVANTAGE: MAC - MUCH better overall record, MUCH better vs BCS record

In case you think it's all in the teams I picked, the MAC is also better over the period as a whole conference, but the considerable dead-weight in the MAC brings it closer to the WAC.

WAC RECORDS for the Period:
BoiseSt (51-21)(1-8)
FresnoSt (46-30)(5-12)
LaTech (37-33)(3-20)
--------------------------------.500
Hawaii (34-38)(1-9)
Rice (32-35)(2-11)
SJSU (27-43)(4-15)
SMU (25-43)(2-10)
Nevada (24-44)(0-7)
UTEP(24-45)(0-12)
Tulsa (15-53)(1-11)
TOTAL: 315-385 (.450), 19-115 (.142)

MAC RECORDS for the Period:
Marshall (65-13)(3-6)
Toledo (51-21)(5-5)
Miami(OH) (45-23)(5-6)
WestMich (40-27)(3-10)
UCF (38-29)(1-20)
--------------------------------.500
BGSU (32-35)(5-8)
Ohio (30-37)(2-11)
Akron (27-40)(2-10)
NoIllinois (27-40)(1-11)
BallState (22-45)(0-12)
CentMich (21-46)(0-9)
EastMich (19-48)(0-8)
KentState (15-52)(0-7)
Buffalo (9-57)(1-6)
TOTAL: 441-513 (.462), 28-129 vs BCS (.178)

Overall (by winning percentage):
1. (MAC) Marshall (65-13)(3-6)
2. (MAC) Toledo (51-21)(5-5)
2. (WAC) BoiseSt (51-21)(1-8)
4. (MAC) Miami(OH) (45-23)(5-6)
5. (WAC) FresnoSt (46-30)(5-12)
6. (MAC) WestMich (40-27)(3-10)
7. (MAC) UCF (38-29)(1-20)
8. (WAC) LaTech (37-33)(3-20)

Anyway you slice it, the MAC has outperformed the WAC for the past 6 years (at least).
The numbers look right. Very nice post. I salute you. 04-bow

The WAC is WACked. :chair:

How about a link so that we may join the fray? This may be good sport.
Dang, nert, you've been crunching some numbers! 04-bow
The media always likes to portray the WAC as the best of the non-BCS conferences (followed by C-USA, and we know how wrong that is). You ought to whip this off to some sportswriter at sportsline or ESPN--they are always looking for angles and do the occasional non BCS article.
Well done!
axeme Wrote:Dang, nert, you've been crunching some numbers! 04-bow
The media always likes to portray the WAC as the best of the non-BCS conferences (followed by C-USA, and we know how wrong that is). You ought to whip this off to some sportswriter at sportsline or ESPN--they are always looking for angles and do the occasional non BCS article.
Well done!
I'd be willing to bet the numbers in hoops are similiar, if not more indicative of our...dominance :D

BTW, nice work Nert 04-bow
axeme Wrote:The media always likes to portray the WAC as the best of the non-BCS conferences (followed by C-USA, and we know how wrong that is).
I think you're confusing the WAC with the MWC. The MWC is the best non-BCS conference though.
D'oh!
Of course--MWC. And not the first time I've done that either.
Thanks.
Our top 5 teams are definitely better than their top 5. However, they're usually better from top to bottom overall, i.e., our cellar dwellers are worse than their cellar dwellers. Our conference lives in a dual standard. I think if the conference had more parity, it would get a lot more respect. Please note that I am not singling out any team. Some of the teams at the bottom of our stack have a long tradition of competitive sports and they could be resurrected by a serious AD.
I could be wrong, but I thought Jeff Sagarin rated our league better than the WAC in each of the past two years. That's powerful evidence, if you ask me.

The MAC could be, on average, a little worse than the WAC and still have better teams at the top. The reason: Our league is a lot bigger. Our bigness means we ought to have more decent teams at the top.

Sagarin takes every team into account. If he ranks the MAC better than the WAC, we are better as far as I'm concerned.
2002 Mean Sagarin:

MAC - 63.8
WAC - 61.10


2001 Mean Sagarin:

MAC - 62.96
WAC - 62.97
Rightupinthere Wrote:The numbers look right. Very nice post. I salute you. 04-bow

The WAC is WACked. :chair:

How about a link so that we may join the fray? This may be good sport.
OK, jump in - but it's a bit down the scroll now.

Their page does not bring recently posted on threads back to the top - I suppose I should re-post it on top.


<a href='http://www.owlzone.com/cgi-bin/webbbs/webbbs_config2.pl' target='_blank'>WAC page</a>
My. There sure is quite a bit of "snot flinging" over there, isn't there? Far more than here and slightly more than the Teamyates site of NIU.

I wanted to read more, but I couldn't tolerate the incoherent language. It seems as though many of the posters have the Jim Rome vernacular going. Jim Rome is to the English language as the atomic bomb was to Japanese architecture.

Schadenfraude (one of the best board names, my brother), you had a great response on that board. My hat is off to you. 04-bow
Rightupinthere Wrote:My.&nbsp; There sure is quite a bit of "snot flinging" over there, isn't there?&nbsp; Far more than here and slightly more than the Teamyates site of NIU.
We're supposed to be moving to an Insiders board in the not-to-distant future, which we're hoping will provide greater moderation, a more visually appealing board, and an improvement in the calibre of the discussion, as the deadbeats, trolls and other troublemakers are weeded out.
Until then, we just have to muddle through.
FYI-There are actually a lot of good posters on the teamyates board. For obvious reasons, they're a little harder to find this week amidst the rabble and bandwagon jumpers . 03-wink
Rightupinthere Wrote:Jim Rome is to the English language as the atomic bomb was to Japanese architecture.
Regardless of what any one else posts between now and midnight Saturday, this WILL be my favorite analogy of the week.
Flying Corn Wrote:We're supposed to be moving to an Insiders board in the not-to-distant future, which we're hoping will provide greater moderation, a more visually appealing board, and an improvement in the calibre of the discussion, as the deadbeats, trolls and other troublemakers are weeded out.
Until then, we just have to muddle through.
FYI-There are actually a lot of good posters on the teamyates board. For obvious reasons, they're a little harder to find this week amidst the rabble and bandwagon jumpers .&nbsp; 03-wink

Good. I like your board. There are some really good folks over there, but there is quite a bit of in-fighting and the like. Mostly the pro-Novak camp and the anti-Novak camp. Granted the anti-Novak camp seems to be about 2 people (with about 13 aliases.)

I like Novak. He plays football the way it should be played (even though it's on turf).
03-wink
Reference URL's