This summarizes the conference records and percentages of each Power 5 team since each of the conferences changed to their current makeup (Pac 12: 2011, SEC and Big 12: 2012, Big 10 and ACC: 2014)

For teams in divisions, number is overall place in conference.

Please report errors.

I'll do one post per conference.

Big Ten: 2014-2019

1. Ohio State: 48-4 (.923)
3. Michigan: 35-17 (.673)
4. Penn State: 34-18 (.654)
6. Michigan State: 31-21 (.596)
10. Indiana: 16-36 (.308)
12. Maryland: 14-38 (.269)
14. Rutgers: 7-45 (.135)

2. Wisconsin: 41-11 (.788)
5. Iowa: 33-19 (.635)
7. Northwestern: 30-22 (.577)
8. Minnesota: 24-28 (.462)
9. Nebraska: 23-29 (.442)
11. Purdue: 15-37 (.288)
13. Illinois: 13-39 (.250)

Total East: 185-179 (.508)

Many think the Big Ten is unbalanced towards the East but in reality the East is only six games ahead. In 2014 and 2015, each Big Ten team played 8 games and from 2016 on they played 9 games which means they each played 2 cross divisional games in 2014 and 2015 and 3 from 2016-2019 for 16 per team in the span or 224 games total. If we only count those games, the East Division won 115 and the West won 109 for a % of .513. That doesn't seem to be too unbalanced. Ohio State by far was the best team in the conference but Wisconsin was far and away the second best and they were in the West. Rutgers was also by far the worst and they were in the East, counter balancing Ohio State. The East has Michigan and Penn State which is the difference in why the East looks tougher. If you add the ranks, the East's come out slightly lower (51 to 54), meaning the East is the tougher division but of course that will happen to whatever division Ohio State is in. For Big Ten teams, it was either Feast or Famine as the closest team to .500 was Minnesota and they were four games below .500.

I actually tried Leaders and Legends and added Rutgers to the Leaders because the rule is M's have to go to the Legends. You would think the Leaders would dominate since they'd have Ohio State and Wisconsin as well as Penn State. But they'd also have Rutgers, Indiana, Purdue, and Illinois. They were actually at .478! Ironically if you gave Maryland to the Leaders it came out pretty well, .497 for the Leaders (181-183). The problem there is you can't use "M's, N's, and Iowa anymore:)" The only other Leaders/Legends that keep a reasonable pattern would be to move Iowa in the Leaders so all the I's (and P's) are in the Leaders and all the M's and N's are in the Legends. That leaves Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Rutgers and one has to go to the Legends. Sending Rutgers to the Legends makes the Leaders too difficult (it would have OSU, Wisc, and PSU and no Rutgers) and keeping Rutgers in the Leaders makes it too easy. North-South splits the top teams well (Wisconsin and Michigan in the North and Penn State and Ohio State in the South) but gives all the dogs to the South. It would be Ohio State, Penn State, and the five worst teams! The South wound up with .404!

I would say unless the Big Ten drops divisions altogether, there's no reason to switch them up.

as much as we make fun of Clemson carrying the ACC, tosu is doing the exact same thing in the BIG. Wisconsin is feasting on it's struggling division foes. Feels like it just made the gap wider since expanding.

ACC: 2014-2019

1. Clemson: 44-4 (.917)
2. Florida State: 29-19 (.604)
6. Louisville: 26-22 (.542)
9. NC State: 21-27 (.438)
12. Boston College: 18-30 (.375)
13. Wake Forest: 16-32 (.333)
14. Syracuse: 15-33 (.313)

T3. Miami: 28-20 (.583)
T3. Pittsburgh: 28-20 (.583)
5. Virginia Tech: 27-21 (.563)
7. North Carolina: 23-25 (.479)
8. Georgia Tech: 22-26 (.458)
10. Virginia: 20-28 (.417)
11. Duke: 19-29 (.396)

Total Atlantic: 169-167 (.503)

Nobody knows who's in what division but the divisions are as balanced as you can get with a difference of just two games between the two divisions. Clemson of course is a mile ahead of everyone else. Florida State is #2 but just by one game ahead of Miami and Pittsburgh who are a game ahead of Virginia Tech. The Atlantic also has the three worst teams although Boston College is just one game ahead of Duke and that's probably because BC had to play Clemson six times while Duke likely only played them once.

There's a complete thread about switching the ACC's divisions in this board and another on the ACC's board.

One I've discussed was an "Inner/Outer" alignment putting the Virginia and North Carolina teams in one division with Louisville. If you use that alignment, you can get rid of permanent rivals and it would be easy to figure out who is in which division. The problem is the four best teams in the last six seasons (Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and Pittsburgh) would all be in the Outer division while the Inner would still have Duke and Wake Forest, two of the worst. The Outer would have a 184-152 (.548) edge. However, if the outer teams had to play Clemson and the inner teams didn't, would it even out? In the ACC, each team only plays two cross divisional teams a year.

Another possibility would be North/South with the Triangle schools in the South and Wake Forest in the North. You can have North Carolina-Virginia as a permanent rival the same way Indiana-Purdue is a permanent rival is in the Big Ten and get rid of all the others. The South would have a 186-150 (.554) advantage.

I finally did Old (pre Florida State's entry) and New. This separated Clemson from the Florida schools. The permanent rival here would be Virginia-Virginia Tech. The New came out ahead, 171-165. .509. Clemson would be the only school in the Old with a winning record over the last six seasons. The next best team in the Old division would be North Carolina which had the 7th best overall ACC record. But it's as balanced as you can get other than leaving it alone.

I'm not sure if there's any alignment that can separate the top teams but makes it where the ACC can eliminate all but one permanent cross divisional rival. Ideally you'd have Clemson in one division and the Florida schools in the other division.

SEC 2012-2019 (two extra years here since Texas A&M and Missouri joined two years earlier)

2. Georgia: 48-16 (.750)
4. Florida: 41-23 (.641)
T7. South Carolina: 31-33 (.484)
9. Missouri: 30-34 (.469)
11. Tennessee: 22-42 (.344)
12. Kentucky: 20-44 (.313)
13. Vanderbilt: 19-45 (.297)

1. Alabama: 57-7 (.891)
3. LSU: 44-20 (.688)
5. Texas A&M: 34-30 (.531)
6. Auburn: 33-31 (.516)
T7. Mississippi State: 30-34 (.469)
10. Mississippi: 25-39 (.391)
14. Arkansas: 13-51 (.203)

Total East: 211-237 (.471)

Of the four P5's with divisions, the SEC's were the least balanced of the four conferences with the west not surprisingly being tougher. The top four are split with the West having #1 and #3 but the West then has #5 and #6 and four of the six teams with winning conference records. The East meanwhile has three of the four worst but the West by far has the worst in Arkansas.

The alignment I might have proposed before would be to move Alabama and Auburn to the East and Vanderbilt to the West. The advantage there would be the only permanent rival necessary would be Tennessee-Vanderbilt and it puts Missouri back in the West where they belong and cuts travel. The problem is the East would be really tough (252-196, .563). If you move Kentucky to the West instead of Vanderbilt, the East would be at 251-197 (.560). If you move only switch Auburn and Missouri, the West is still ahead, 234-214 (.522). It would be three games better than now. However, Alabama couldn't play both Auburn and Tennessee every year so it would have almost no chance of happening.

Moving Alabama and Auburn to the East is better geographically and would allow the SEC to eliminate all permanent rivals except Tennessee-Vanderbilt (if they move Kentucky to the West instead of Vanderbilt they might be able to eliminate all of them although Tennessee-Kentucky might still want to stay). If the conference can get rid of permanent rivals, non divisional opponents can play more often. If the SEC goes this route, you are counting on the divisions evening out eventually.

I can't think of any alignment that is both geographically sensical and balanced. If you were going with balance, you'd probably have to put Alabama, Auburn, and Texas A&M in one conference and Georgia, LSU, and Florida in the other. The best I can do was

Georgia, LSU, Florida, South Carolina, Mississippi State, Mississippi, Arkansas (233-215, .520)
Alabama, Texas A&M, Auburn, Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, Vanderbilt

The only protected rival I think would be necessary would be Auburn-Georgia. Once the top teams are separated, Auburn-Georgia becomes the protected rivalry meaning for Alabama-Tennessee to stay Tennessee has to be in Alabama's division and Vanderbilt and Kentucky practically have to be in the same division. That leaves one team in Alabama's division. Of the remaining teams, South Carolina is next but you don't want to separate them from Georgia and Florida. The next two would be Mississippi State and Missouri. You're not splitting the Mississippi teams so Alabama gets Missouri. But good luck figuring out who is in which division or better yet naming the divisions.

(04-14-2020 11:25 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Of the four P5's with divisions, the SEC's were the least balanced of the four conferences with the west not surprisingly being tougher. The top four are split with the West having #1 and #3 but the West then has #5 and #6 and four of the six teams with winning conference records. The East meanwhile has three of the four worst but the West by far has the worst in Arkansas.

While I appreciate your efforts, there are IMO some obvious problems. First, conference schedules aren't the same either. So maybe use something like the MC computer rankings to get a picture of team strength?

Second, any conference would be foolish to base conference division members on something as ephemeral as five year won-loss records. For most schools, wins and losses are very dependent on the quality of the current head coach. You scramble up the divisions and then Saban retires and Alabama goes back to 7-5 again?

Divisional balance should be based on overall institutional strength. On that basis, the SEC divisions are very nicely balanced. Arguably the East is stronger.

Pac 12 2011-19:

1. Stanford (Surprise!): 58-23 (.716)
2. Oregon: 57-24 (.704)
4. Washington: 49-32 (.605)
8. Washington State: 38-43 (.469)
10. California: 26-55 (.321)
11. Oregon State: 23-58 (.284)

3. USC: 56-25 (.691)
5. Arizona State: 44-37 (.543)
6. Utah: 42-39 (.519)
7. UCLA: 41-40 (.506)
9. Arizona: 32-49 (.395)
12. Colorado: 20-61 (.247)

Total North: 251-235 (.516)

The North is fairly far ahead but there's less flexibility here assuming you want to keep travel partners together.

To help you here:
Stanford/California: 84-78 (+6)
Oregon/Oregon State: 80-82 (-2)
USC/UCLA: 97-65 (+32)
Washington/Washington State: 87-75 (+12)
Arizona State/Arizona: 76-86 (-10)
Utah/Colorado: 62-100 (-38)

You'd want to put the LA schools and Utah/Colorado in the same division or it would be incredibly lopsided. That would put you 6 games below .500. If you put Stanford/Cal with them, the divisions would be 100% balanced! The problem is all four California teams would be in the same division and the other six teams would never go for that. You could put the Washington schools with them and the LA division would be six games ahead (LA, Washington, Mountain) vs. (SF, Oregon, Arizona). But what would that accomplish?

Finally, I'll add the Big 12 to this post. No divisions but it'll tell who was good and who was bad.

Big 12 2012-2019

1. Oklahoma: 61-11 (.847)
2. Oklahoma State: 44-28 (.611)
T3. Kansas State: 42-30 (.583)
T3. Baylor: 42-30 (.583)
5. Texas: 41-31 (.569)
6. TCU: 39-33 (.542)
7. West Virginia: 36-36 (.500) - Only P5 to finish exactly .500
T8. Texas Tech: 25-47 (.347)
T8. Iowa State: 25-47 (.347)
10. Kansas: 5-67 (.069)

(04-14-2020 11:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 11:25 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Of the four P5's with divisions, the SEC's were the least balanced of the four conferences with the west not surprisingly being tougher. The top four are split with the West having #1 and #3 but the West then has #5 and #6 and four of the six teams with winning conference records. The East meanwhile has three of the four worst but the West by far has the worst in Arkansas.

While I appreciate your efforts, there are IMO some obvious problems. First, overall record comparisons are suspect, because OOC schedules aren't the same. So probably better to just look at conference records. But then again, conference schedules aren't the same either. So maybe use something like the MC computer rankings to get a picture of team strength?

Second, any conference would be foolish to base conference division members on something as ephemeral as five year won-loss records. For most schools, wins and losses are very dependent on the quality of the current head coach. You scramble up the divisions and then Saban retires and Alabama goes back to 7-5 again?

Divisional balance should be based on overall institutional strength. On that basis, the SEC divisions are very nicely balanced. Arguably the East is stronger.

I think it’s conference only games being used in his calculations. 2012 through 2019 = 8 seasons times 8 conference games = 64 total conference games

(04-14-2020 09:47 AM)schmolik Wrote:  ACC: 2014-2019

1. Clemson: 44-4 (.917)
2. Florida State: 29-19 (.604)
6. Louisville: 26-22 (.542)
9. NC State: 21-27 (.438)
12. Boston College: 18-30 (.375)
13. Wake Forest: 16-32 (.333)
14. Syracuse: 15-33 (.313)

T3. Miami: 28-20 (.583)
T3. Pittsburgh: 28-20 (.583)
5. Virginia Tech: 27-21 (.563)
7. North Carolina: 23-25 (.479)
8. Georgia Tech: 22-26 (.458)
10. Virginia: 20-28 (.417)
11. Duke: 19-29 (.396)

Total Atlantic: 169-167 (.503)

Nobody knows who's in what division but the divisions are as balanced as you can get with a difference of just two games between the two divisions. Clemson of course is a mile ahead of everyone else. Florida State is #2 but just by one game ahead of Miami and Pittsburgh who are a game ahead of Virginia Tech. The Atlantic also has the three worst teams although Boston College is just one game ahead of Duke and that's probably because BC had to play Clemson six times while Duke likely only played them once.

There's a complete thread about switching the ACC's divisions in this board and another on the ACC's board.

One I've discussed was an "Inner/Outer" alignment putting the Virginia and North Carolina teams in one division with Louisville. If you use that alignment, you can get rid of permanent rivals and it would be easy to figure out who is in which division. The problem is the four best teams in the last six seasons (Clemson, Florida State, Miami, and Pittsburgh) would all be in the Outer division while the Inner would still have Duke and Wake Forest, two of the worst. The Outer would have a 184-152 (.548) edge. However, if the outer teams had to play Clemson and the inner teams didn't, would it even out? In the ACC, each team only plays two cross divisional teams a year.

Another possibility would be North/South with the Triangle schools in the South and Wake Forest in the North. You can have North Carolina-Virginia as a permanent rival the same way Indiana-Purdue is a permanent rival is in the Big Ten and get rid of all the others. The South would have a 186-150 (.554) advantage.

I finally did Old (pre Florida State's entry) and New. This separated Clemson from the Florida schools. The permanent rival here would be Virginia-Virginia Tech. The New came out ahead, 171-165. .509. Clemson would be the only school in the Old with a winning record over the last six seasons. The next best team in the Old division would be North Carolina which had the 7th best overall ACC record. But it's as balanced as you can get other than leaving it alone.

I'm not sure if there's any alignment that can separate the top teams but makes it where the ACC can eliminate all but one permanent cross divisional rival. Ideally you'd have Clemson in one division and the Florida schools in the other division.

You could make it perfectly even over this time frame by moving FSU, Louisville and NCSU "south" and Pitt, UVA and VT "north".

South would be FSU, Miami, Georgia Tech, UNC, Duke, NCSU and Louisville
North would be Syracuse, Pitt, BC, UVA, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest and Clemson.

(04-14-2020 11:31 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-14-2020 11:25 AM)schmolik Wrote:  Of the four P5's with divisions, the SEC's were the least balanced of the four conferences with the west not surprisingly being tougher. The top four are split with the West having #1 and #3 but the West then has #5 and #6 and four of the six teams with winning conference records. The East meanwhile has three of the four worst but the West by far has the worst in Arkansas.

While I appreciate your efforts, there are IMO some obvious problems. First, overall record comparisons are suspect, because OOC schedules aren't the same. So probably better to just look at conference records. But then again, conference schedules aren't the same either. So maybe use something like the MC computer rankings to get a picture of team strength?

Second, any conference would be foolish to base conference division members on something as ephemeral as five year won-loss records. For most schools, wins and losses are very dependent on the quality of the current head coach. You scramble up the divisions and then Saban retires and Alabama goes back to 7-5 again?

Divisional balance should be based on overall institutional strength. On that basis, the SEC divisions are very nicely balanced. Arguably the East is stronger.

In the early years the Big 12 North was far stronger. At the end, the South was far stronger. In the 1990s and early 2000s before Alabama's resurgence, the SEC East was the stronger division.

(04-14-2020 01:09 PM)bullet Wrote:  In the early years the Big 12 North was far stronger. At the end, the South was far stronger. In the 1990s and early 2000s before Alabama's resurgence, the SEC East was the stronger division.

Yes, about 20 or so years ago, when Spurrier and Fulmer were winning national titles and battling for the SEC title every year, everyone said the SEC West was so weak and the divisions should be shaken up, etc. These things are cyclical.

Another reason the Pac-12 hasn't had many Playoff teams: Since Colorado and Utah joined the conference, not one Pac-12 team has gone 9-0 in conference games and that's nine seasons. Stanford has the best conference record in that span and they're a little over 70% while the other four conferences have one dominant team. Wisconsin won a higher % of conference games and they're a distant second in the Big Ten. Every Pac-12 team in the CFP era who finished with just one loss has made the Playoff. The problem is only two teams in those six years have done so, Oregon in 2014 (2015 Rose Bowl) and Washington in 2016 (2017 Peach Bowl).