(06-26-2017 05:15 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 02:07 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 01:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 01:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Why would you not include games against the BIG EAST? It was a power conference.

... because I was just interested in "P5 vs P5", the current configuration of power conferences. Obviously, we could look at many things - just regular season, just bowl games, just games vs G5, just games vs FCS, all games vs everybody, etc. I was interested in this specific topic so I posted on it.

Well it's not P5 vs P5 because you are leaving out games against ranked power conference teams like Miami, VT, WVU, Pitt, UofL, Cincy, Rutgers and Syracuse.

Actually, what I posted was precisely "P5 vs P5". Including anything else would have rendered it something other than P5 vs P5.

Except you arbitrarily excluded a number of teams who are P5 teams now, and/or who were power teams then (there was no P5, only a P6).

In using your deeply flawed methodology, you got a result that you wouldn't have expected had you used a sound methodology. That's not really surprising :/

If you have ever tried to include the now defunct Big East in an analysis of this type, you would understand why he didn't do it. Regardless, he got exactly the result one would have expected from considering all other sources of conference to conference comparison. I have no idea in what way you think it would have been any different.

(06-26-2017 05:15 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 02:07 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 01:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 01:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Why would you not include games against the BIG EAST? It was a power conference.

... because I was just interested in "P5 vs P5", the current configuration of power conferences. Obviously, we could look at many things - just regular season, just bowl games, just games vs G5, just games vs FCS, all games vs everybody, etc. I was interested in this specific topic so I posted on it.

Well it's not P5 vs P5 because you are leaving out games against ranked power conference teams like Miami, VT, WVU, Pitt, UofL, Cincy, Rutgers and Syracuse.

Actually, what I posted was precisely "P5 vs P5". Including anything else would have rendered it something other than P5 vs P5.

Except you arbitrarily excluded a number of teams who are P5 teams now, and/or who were power teams then (there was no P5, only a P6).

In using your deeply flawed methodology, you got a result that you wouldn't have expected had you used a sound methodology. That's not really surprising :/

He only used the records of the current P5 schools. He did not count the records they had when they were not in the present P5. His methodology for what he was trying to illustrate was not flawed. Rutgers in the Big 10 and Syracuse, Pitt, Miami, B.C. and Virginia Tech are counted for their years in the ACC. He was looking for a comparison for the present P5. He wasn't counting defunct conferences because those would skew the comparison which is not to the Old Big East.

(06-26-2017 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 02:07 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 01:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 01:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 10:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  It is OOC and Bowl Games vs other P5 only. So, e.g., the B1G total includes only games that B1G schools have played vs the SEC, ACC, PAC, and Big 12, both regular season and bowls. Games that B1G teams played against teams from any other conferences, existing ones such as the Sun Belt and MWC and also ones that are now defunct, such as the WAC and Big East, are not incuded. Games vs independents and FCS are also not included, only games vs other P5 conferences.

Why would you not include games against the BIG EAST? It was a power conference.

... because I was just interested in "P5 vs P5", the current configuration of power conferences. Obviously, we could look at many things - just regular season, just bowl games, just games vs G5, just games vs FCS, all games vs everybody, etc. I was interested in this specific topic so I posted on it.

Well it's not P5 vs P5 because you are leaving out games against ranked power conference teams like Miami, VT, WVU, Pitt, UofL, Cincy, Rutgers and Syracuse.

Actually, what I posted was precisely "P5 vs P5". Including anything else would have rendered it something other than P5 vs P5.

So did you count "P5's" TCU (MWC) Utah (MWC)...my guess is you don't count Utah's beat down of Alabama in your stats. Or USF's (BE) victory over Auburn, let alone ECU beating South Carolina Wyoming (MWC) beating Ol Miss, New Mexico (MWC) beating Missouri, Air Force beating Tennessee, Boise St beating Georgia. Can't show SEC schools losing to lowly non-P5 schools right? If you did count those games, I apologize. Do I need to apologize?

For anyone who wishes to use some other methodology, nothing is stopping you from doing so and starting your own thread. There is nothing wrong (or biased, as some seem to be suggesting) about the methodology chosen. The only bias I see is that coming from critics.

(06-26-2017 06:48 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 02:07 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 01:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 01:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Why would you not include games against the BIG EAST? It was a power conference.

... because I was just interested in "P5 vs P5", the current configuration of power conferences. Obviously, we could look at many things - just regular season, just bowl games, just games vs G5, just games vs FCS, all games vs everybody, etc. I was interested in this specific topic so I posted on it.

Well it's not P5 vs P5 because you are leaving out games against ranked power conference teams like Miami, VT, WVU, Pitt, UofL, Cincy, Rutgers and Syracuse.

Actually, what I posted was precisely "P5 vs P5". Including anything else would have rendered it something other than P5 vs P5.

So did you count "P5's" TCU (MWC) Utah (MWC)...my guess is you don't count Utah's beat down of Alabama in your stats. Or USF's (BE) victory over Auburn, let alone ECU beating South Carolina Wyoming (MWC) beating Ol Miss, New Mexico (MWC) beating Missouri, Air Force beating Tennessee, Boise St beating Georgia. Can't show SEC schools losing to lowly non-P5 schools right? If you did count those games, I apologize. Do I need to apologize?

They were not counted. That's why I said I would like to see a breakdown on the G5 vs P5 and the FCS vs P5. All three together would be a bit more revealing.

(06-26-2017 06:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 06:48 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 02:07 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 01:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  ... because I was just interested in "P5 vs P5", the current configuration of power conferences. Obviously, we could look at many things - just regular season, just bowl games, just games vs G5, just games vs FCS, all games vs everybody, etc. I was interested in this specific topic so I posted on it.

Well it's not P5 vs P5 because you are leaving out games against ranked power conference teams like Miami, VT, WVU, Pitt, UofL, Cincy, Rutgers and Syracuse.

Actually, what I posted was precisely "P5 vs P5". Including anything else would have rendered it something other than P5 vs P5.

So did you count "P5's" TCU (MWC) Utah (MWC)...my guess is you don't count Utah's beat down of Alabama in your stats. Or USF's (BE) victory over Auburn, let alone ECU beating South Carolina Wyoming (MWC) beating Ol Miss, New Mexico (MWC) beating Missouri, Air Force beating Tennessee, Boise St beating Georgia. Can't show SEC schools losing to lowly non-P5 schools right? If you did count those games, I apologize. Do I need to apologize?

They were not counted. That's why I said I would like to see a breakdown on the G5 vs P5 and the FCS vs P5. All three together would be a bit more revealing.

Well Rutgers, Cuse, Pitt, WVU, Miami, VT weren't a G5 so I guess all those losses those schools handed out don't count.

Saying you can't count the games against the former BE because the conference doesn't exist anymore is disingenuous. Even if Ken D thinks the outcome would be the same it doesn't matter because any analysis that ignores data is flawed at best.

(06-26-2017 06:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 06:48 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 02:07 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 01:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  ... because I was just interested in "P5 vs P5", the current configuration of power conferences. Obviously, we could look at many things - just regular season, just bowl games, just games vs G5, just games vs FCS, all games vs everybody, etc. I was interested in this specific topic so I posted on it.

Well it's not P5 vs P5 because you are leaving out games against ranked power conference teams like Miami, VT, WVU, Pitt, UofL, Cincy, Rutgers and Syracuse.

Actually, what I posted was precisely "P5 vs P5". Including anything else would have rendered it something other than P5 vs P5.

So did you count "P5's" TCU (MWC) Utah (MWC)...my guess is you don't count Utah's beat down of Alabama in your stats. Or USF's (BE) victory over Auburn, let alone ECU beating South Carolina Wyoming (MWC) beating Ol Miss, New Mexico (MWC) beating Missouri, Air Force beating Tennessee, Boise St beating Georgia. Can't show SEC schools losing to lowly non-P5 schools right? If you did count those games, I apologize. Do I need to apologize?

They were not counted. That's why I said I would like to see a breakdown on the G5 vs P5 and the FCS vs P5. All three together would be a bit more revealing.

It's interesting to go all the way back to 1998, but only "count" games played when said team was "P5"
An example: Utah beating Alabama doesn't count because it happened in 2009, but if the game was played in 2011, it would count? P5 member Utah was in the non P5 MWC until 2011.

Not exactly what everyone's looking for, but: https://sportspolitico.com/2016/01/13/a-...s-program/

(06-26-2017 05:15 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 02:07 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 01:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 01:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Why would you not include games against the BIG EAST? It was a power conference.

... because I was just interested in "P5 vs P5", the current configuration of power conferences. Obviously, we could look at many things - just regular season, just bowl games, just games vs G5, just games vs FCS, all games vs everybody, etc. I was interested in this specific topic so I posted on it.

Well it's not P5 vs P5 because you are leaving out games against ranked power conference teams like Miami, VT, WVU, Pitt, UofL, Cincy, Rutgers and Syracuse.

Actually, what I posted was precisely "P5 vs P5". Including anything else would have rendered it something other than P5 vs P5.

Except you arbitrarily excluded a number of teams who are P5 teams now, and/or who were power teams then (there was no P5, only a P6).

In using your deeply flawed methodology, you got a result that you wouldn't have expected had you used a sound methodology. That's not really surprising :/

What 'conclusions did i draw'? And what is arbitrary about only including games vs P5 in an analysis of P5 records?

My methodology was perfect for what i was trying to accomplish - determine the records of all P5 vs other P5 since 1998.

If i had claimed these results show the PAC has been better than the BIG overall, then you could criticize my method because that conclusion would need to be based on all OOC games, not just vs P5. But i haven't claimed that.

So only someone with an ax to grind would object to it. :(

(06-26-2017 09:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 05:15 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 02:07 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 01:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  ... because I was just interested in "P5 vs P5", the current configuration of power conferences. Obviously, we could look at many things - just regular season, just bowl games, just games vs G5, just games vs FCS, all games vs everybody, etc. I was interested in this specific topic so I posted on it.

Well it's not P5 vs P5 because you are leaving out games against ranked power conference teams like Miami, VT, WVU, Pitt, UofL, Cincy, Rutgers and Syracuse.

Actually, what I posted was precisely "P5 vs P5". Including anything else would have rendered it something other than P5 vs P5.

Except you arbitrarily excluded a number of teams who are P5 teams now, and/or who were power teams then (there was no P5, only a P6).

In using your deeply flawed methodology, you got a result that you wouldn't have expected had you used a sound methodology. That's not really surprising :/

What 'conclusions did i draw'? And what is arbitrary about only including games vs P5 in an analysis of P5 records?

My methodology was perfect for what i was trying to accomplish - determine the records of all P5 vs other P5 since 1998.

If i had claimed these results show the PAC has been better than the BIG overall, then you could criticize my method because that conclusion would need to be based on all OOC games, not just vs P5. But i haven't claimed that.

So only someone with an ax to grind would object to it. :(

No it wasn't perfect. You left out a Miami team who went to back to back national championship games. VT who went to a championship game. WVU who won 3 BCS bowls. Etc etc etc Those teams were power conference teams playing power conference schedules. Omitting the losses the SEC, ACC, Pac, B1G and XII teams took during those years means the methodology is flawed.

(06-26-2017 07:23 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 06:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 06:48 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 02:07 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  Well it's not P5 vs P5 because you are leaving out games against ranked power conference teams like Miami, VT, WVU, Pitt, UofL, Cincy, Rutgers and Syracuse.

Actually, what I posted was precisely "P5 vs P5". Including anything else would have rendered it something other than P5 vs P5.

So did you count "P5's" TCU (MWC) Utah (MWC)...my guess is you don't count Utah's beat down of Alabama in your stats. Or USF's (BE) victory over Auburn, let alone ECU beating South Carolina Wyoming (MWC) beating Ol Miss, New Mexico (MWC) beating Missouri, Air Force beating Tennessee, Boise St beating Georgia. Can't show SEC schools losing to lowly non-P5 schools right? If you did count those games, I apologize. Do I need to apologize?

They were not counted. That's why I said I would like to see a breakdown on the G5 vs P5 and the FCS vs P5. All three together would be a bit more revealing.

Well Rutgers, Cuse, Pitt, WVU, Miami, VT weren't a G5 so I guess all those losses those schools handed out don't count.

Saying you can't count the games against the former BE because the conference doesn't exist anymore is disingenuous. Even if Ken D thinks the outcome would be the same it doesn't matter because any analysis that ignores data is flawed at best.

That's false. It depends on the goal of the analysis. For example, if one wishes to know whether UK or Louisville has been a better overall basketball program, then only counting their head to head games would be flawed, as how good a basketball program is overall should include games versus all opponents. But if your goal is to determine which team has been more successful versus the other, then it makes no sense to count any games but head to head games, as other games have nothing to do with how successful they have been versus each other. For that goal, ignoring other data (all games but head to head) isn't flawed, it's accurate.

You keep making the mistake of thinking my point was to use P5 vs P5 info to show how each conference has performed overall since 1998, when it isn't. It's just to show how good they have been versus other P5 during that time.

Power Conferences vs. Each Other, 1998-2016

ACC: 222-250
Big 12: 163-166
Big East/American (1998-2013): 138-172
Big Ten: 201-218
Notre Dame: 106-86
Pac-10/12: 178-157
SEC: 217-176


  Power Conferences Vs 1998-2016.png (Size: 36.72 KB / Downloads: 19)

(06-26-2017 06:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 05:15 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 02:07 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 01:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  ... because I was just interested in "P5 vs P5", the current configuration of power conferences. Obviously, we could look at many things - just regular season, just bowl games, just games vs G5, just games vs FCS, all games vs everybody, etc. I was interested in this specific topic so I posted on it.

Well it's not P5 vs P5 because you are leaving out games against ranked power conference teams like Miami, VT, WVU, Pitt, UofL, Cincy, Rutgers and Syracuse.

Actually, what I posted was precisely "P5 vs P5". Including anything else would have rendered it something other than P5 vs P5.

Except you arbitrarily excluded a number of teams who are P5 teams now, and/or who were power teams then (there was no P5, only a P6).

In using your deeply flawed methodology, you got a result that you wouldn't have expected had you used a sound methodology. That's not really surprising :/

He only used the records of the current P5 schools. He did not count the records they had when they were not in the present P5. His methodology for what he was trying to illustrate was not flawed. Rutgers in the Big 10 and Syracuse, Pitt, Miami, B.C. and Virginia Tech are counted for their years in the ACC. He was looking for a comparison for the present P5. He wasn't counting defunct conferences because those would skew the comparison which is not to the Old Big East.

It's absolutely flawed anyway you want to reasonably look at it. The BIG EAST schools were power conference schools, and most of them still are. Arbitrarily ignoring wins/losses against those schools skews results in a couple of ways, especially if your argument is that the SEC doesn't duck competition. The results are skewed because BE-SEC games under-index BE-B1G and BE-ACC games, so removing the BE artificially moves every conference towards parity, which, not surprisingly, was his finding. That's not valid.

He also didn't account for conference size.

If you don't arbitrarily exclude data and account for conference size, the results fall into line w/ expectations. Shocking.

(06-27-2017 07:33 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  Power Conferences vs. Each Other, 1998-2016

ACC: 222-250
Big 12: 163-166
Big East/American (1998-2013): 138-172
Big Ten: 201-218
Notre Dame: 106-86
Pac-10/12: 178-157
SEC: 217-176

In other words, pretty much the same result as in the OP.

........With BE....Without
SEC.....55...........57
PAC.....53...........54
B12.....50...........50
B1G.....48...........45
ACC.....47...........44

Adding the BE both the B1G and the ACC, the two conferences whose regions overlap with them, improves the record of those two conferences by about the same amount.

(06-26-2017 06:42 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 05:15 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 02:07 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 01:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  ... because I was just interested in "P5 vs P5", the current configuration of power conferences. Obviously, we could look at many things - just regular season, just bowl games, just games vs G5, just games vs FCS, all games vs everybody, etc. I was interested in this specific topic so I posted on it.

Well it's not P5 vs P5 because you are leaving out games against ranked power conference teams like Miami, VT, WVU, Pitt, UofL, Cincy, Rutgers and Syracuse.

Actually, what I posted was precisely "P5 vs P5". Including anything else would have rendered it something other than P5 vs P5.

Except you arbitrarily excluded a number of teams who are P5 teams now, and/or who were power teams then (there was no P5, only a P6).

In using your deeply flawed methodology, you got a result that you wouldn't have expected had you used a sound methodology. That's not really surprising :/

If you have ever tried to include the now defunct Big East in an analysis of this type, you would understand why he didn't do it. Regardless, he got exactly the result one would have expected from considering all other sources of conference to conference comparison. I have no idea in what way you think it would have been any different.

You're wrong. See the post above this one for an explanation.

(06-26-2017 10:51 AM)goofus Wrote:  This is all very interesting and everybody is probably going to concede the SEC was the best conference in this time period. But its hard to draw hard conclusions going forward because of constantly changing members, total number of members, and number of conference games each team played each year.

As for total OOC games, is it fair to compare a 10-team PAC that played 9 conference games with a 12-team SEC that played 8 conference games? OF course the SEC is going to have more opportunities to play more P5 OOC games.

I'm not going to go through the calculation (you would have to average the number of schools in each conference over 1998-2016), but on a rough basis, it looks like the SEC would be 4th of the 5 conferences in P5 ooc games per school, ahead of only the Pac, who, of course, plays an extra P5 game in conference. During part of the period, the ACC only had 9 schools and for most, the Pac only had 10 and the B1G 11. During the last few years the Big 12 only had 10. Meanwhile, the SEC had 12 to 14.

(06-26-2017 05:15 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 02:07 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 01:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 01:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Why would you not include games against the BIG EAST? It was a power conference.

... because I was just interested in "P5 vs P5", the current configuration of power conferences. Obviously, we could look at many things - just regular season, just bowl games, just games vs G5, just games vs FCS, all games vs everybody, etc. I was interested in this specific topic so I posted on it.

Well it's not P5 vs P5 because you are leaving out games against ranked power conference teams like Miami, VT, WVU, Pitt, UofL, Cincy, Rutgers and Syracuse.

Actually, what I posted was precisely "P5 vs P5". Including anything else would have rendered it something other than P5 vs P5.

Except you arbitrarily excluded a number of teams who are P5 teams now, and/or who were power teams then (there was no P5, only a P6).

In using your deeply flawed methodology, you got a result that you wouldn't have expected had you used a sound methodology. That's not really surprising :/

Only makes a difference if the Big East did significantly different vs. one of the conferences relative to another.

(06-26-2017 09:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 05:15 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 02:07 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 01:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  ... because I was just interested in "P5 vs P5", the current configuration of power conferences. Obviously, we could look at many things - just regular season, just bowl games, just games vs G5, just games vs FCS, all games vs everybody, etc. I was interested in this specific topic so I posted on it.

Well it's not P5 vs P5 because you are leaving out games against ranked power conference teams like Miami, VT, WVU, Pitt, UofL, Cincy, Rutgers and Syracuse.

Actually, what I posted was precisely "P5 vs P5". Including anything else would have rendered it something other than P5 vs P5.

Except you arbitrarily excluded a number of teams who are P5 teams now, and/or who were power teams then (there was no P5, only a P6).

In using your deeply flawed methodology, you got a result that you wouldn't have expected had you used a sound methodology. That's not really surprising :/

What 'conclusions did i draw'? And what is arbitrary about only including games vs P5 in an analysis of P5 records?

My methodology was perfect for what i was trying to accomplish - determine the records of all P5 vs other P5 since 1998.

If i had claimed these results show the PAC has been better than the BIG overall, then you could criticize my method because that conclusion would need to be based on all OOC games, not just vs P5. But i haven't claimed that.

So only someone with an ax to grind would object to it. :(

Here's an erroneous conclusion that you drew based on arbitrarily excluded data:
"Note that the SEC often gets critiqued for avoiding P5 games in favor of rent-a-wins, but this chart shows that SEC teams have actually played more overall games vs other P5 than any other conference."

Yes, if you randomly ignore power conference games to fit your argument, you can create data that supports any argument that you want. It just isn't valid.

The BIG EAST was 100% a power conference, and I will happily cite sources if you really don't believe me. Additionally, most of the BIG EAST (Rutgers, Miami, Virginia Tech, Boston College, West Virginia, Syracuse, Pitt, and Louisville) are currently in P5 conferences. Once again, I can cite sources.

Those teams play ACC-B1G schools more than SEC schools (and I can cite sources if you like). Therefore, ignoring them creates an artificial parity. Honestly, the same is true for Utah and Notre Dame (I can't remember if you included the Irish).

You also failed to factor in the fact that the SEC has never not been the biggest (or tied for the biggest) power conference in terms of number of football-playing teams in it.

(06-27-2017 08:34 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 05:15 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 02:07 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 01:18 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  ... because I was just interested in "P5 vs P5", the current configuration of power conferences. Obviously, we could look at many things - just regular season, just bowl games, just games vs G5, just games vs FCS, all games vs everybody, etc. I was interested in this specific topic so I posted on it.

Well it's not P5 vs P5 because you are leaving out games against ranked power conference teams like Miami, VT, WVU, Pitt, UofL, Cincy, Rutgers and Syracuse.

Actually, what I posted was precisely "P5 vs P5". Including anything else would have rendered it something other than P5 vs P5.

Except you arbitrarily excluded a number of teams who are P5 teams now, and/or who were power teams then (there was no P5, only a P6).

In using your deeply flawed methodology, you got a result that you wouldn't have expected had you used a sound methodology. That's not really surprising :/

Only makes a difference if the Big East did significantly different vs. one of the conferences relative to another.

....which they did. They dramatically over-indexed against the ACC and B1G. See the poster a couple of posts above.

I preface this comment by saying it's simply my opinion.

It's my opinion that the OP used his flawed methodology to achieve the results he was looking for. He knew eliminating Big East results from this whatever you want to call it would result in devaluing The ACC. That is this OP's ultimate objective.

I would welcome someone else to do the same ranking with Big East records and note the results. I have a hunch you'll get different results that don't reflect the bias message of the OP.
CJ