Who's Any Good In This League, Anyway?

by KevinHD on Jun 14, 2010 8:32 PM EDT in B1G / BigTen

The next year and a half are going to be filled with speculation on how the Big Ten's new divisional alignment—which Delany "presumes" will be a part the 2011 season—will shake out. This post is not part of that pile.

It is an attempt to gather some raw materials we'll need for the guesswork, however. Delany mentioned three criteria: competitive balance, rivalries and geography. That first one will likely be the most important.

College football does not operate on some kind of diversity-seeking salary cap, and so in many regards it's always been the same teams taking turns at the top, and mostly the same teams floating near the bottom. Looking at what will lead to competition in the future means understanding the past. And so, here's the past.

These are Big Ten records only, either in conference matchups or once between future and current members. There are inherent issues with the data set, but there are plenty of issues with overall record as well, so we'll use this one instead.

The ranges I use below, with justification:

1920 - The default of my source, Stassen's awesome database.
1949 - Michigan State joins the Big Ten
1966 - Joe Paterno takes over at Penn State
1980 - 30 years ago
1994 - Penn State ~~begins~~ um, Wins the Big Ten
2000 - 10 years ago
2005 - 5 years ago

All winning percentages are said date through the present as leaving out present years is a waste of space when trying to predict future results. Feel free to attack my ranges; in hindsight a couple of things will seem attackable but are also justifiable (1980 is arbitrary, and the five year window happens to cut out the Dark Years).

Getting on with it...

Team	1920	1949	1966	1980	1994	2000	2005	Avg	Med
Nebraska	0.554	0.722	0.889	0.842	0.889	0.833	1.000	0.818	0.842
Ohio State	0.729	0.77	0.775	0.744	0.781	0.800	0.900	0.785	0.775
Michigan	0.715	0.719	0.776	0.754	0.695	0.662	0.525	0.692	0.715
Penn State	0.620	0.624	0.629	0.633	0.625	0.562	0.725	0.631	0.625
Iowa	0.466	0.491	0.501	0.593	0.535	0.613	0.550	0.535	0.535
Wisconsin	0.459	0.472	0.441	0.480	0.578	0.550	0.625	0.515	0.480
Michigan State	0.534	0.552	0.523	0.500	0.465	0.400	0.400	0.482	0.500
Purdue	0.505	0.503	0.489	0.439	0.504	0.512	0.425	0.482	0.503
Minnesota	0.457	0.415	0.384	0.331	0.32	0.375	0.325	0.372	0.375
Illinois	0.45	0.444	0.432	0.465	0.316	0.325	0.300	0.390	0.432
Northwestern	0.364	0.318	0.310	0.320	0.461	0.475	0.500	0.392	0.364
Indiana	0.317	0.29	0.325	0.305	0.219	0.225	0.225	0.272	0.290

And in chart form:

20100614-x3mhbb286t2r2qewpkasw3a4cy_medium

Sample size obviously decreases as you move right, and in the case of Nebraska is totally worthless once you hit 1994—the Huskers have played just nine Big Ten games since then.

Another thing to consider when you look at Penn State trailing Ohio State and Michigan over the long haul: the Nittany Lions are being significantly punished with this method. While Paterno played quite a few games against Big Ten opponents before joining, it's disproportionately against the best teams in the league, and almost never against the worst ones. Penn State's Big Ten opponents, 1966-1993: Illinois 2, Indiana 1, Iowa 9, Michigan 1, Michigan State 2, Minnesota 1, Nebraska 5, Northwestern 1, Ohio State 5, Purdue 0, Wisconsin 1. This is 20 games against the top 4 teams not including Penn State and just 5 against the bottom 4!

So while Ohio State and Michigan sport better winning percentages during the mid-1900s, it's in part because they're padding the record with annual games against bottom feeding teams like Illinois, Northwestern and Indiana. While Penn State had their own version of Indianas back then, those wins (and they were almost always wins) aren't included in this analysis. This is a major advantage for Ohio State and Michigan when comparing the three schools' Big Ten performance.

Something else is happening as you move to the right. Notice the three very clear groups in the 1920 number? Well that indistinguishable middle-pack breaks up. Iowa, Wisconsin and (yes) Northwestern make a strong trend upward, while Minnesota, Michigan State and Illinois begin to fade.

And oh man is Indiana bad.

So to get on with it, here's your breakdown of "rank" within the conference, with an unscientific weight on more recent timer periods over more historical ones. The best and worst number is a school's rank during any of the time periods above.

	Avg	Med	Best	Worst
Nebraska	1	1	1	4
Ohio State	2.3	2	1	3
Michigan	3.5	3	2	6
Penn State	4	4	3	5
Iowa	5	5	4	7
Wisconsin	5.5	5.5	4	8
Purdue	7.8	7.5	6	9
Michigan State	8	8.5	5	9
Northwestern	8.8	8.5	7	12
Minnesota	10	10	9	10
Illinois	10	11	8	11
Indiana	12	12	11	12

So with the major caveats I mentioned above about Nebraska and Penn State, do with this what you will. In 12 months we'll find out if you did done good.

[Photo of ticket via pennstatefootballticketmuseum.com]

Tweet Comment 47 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Didn't we starting playing in the BT in 1993?

Otherwise-interesting stuff. Thanks for doing it. I said last week that Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Nebraska/Wisconsin/Iowa need to be broken up 3 and 3. The numbers seem to support that.

by speedomike on Jun 14, 2010 8:44 PM EDT reply actions

oops.

Agreed, and I think that was mostly obvious, but I think there is something to be said for how exactly you break up Iowa/Wiscy/MSU/Indy ect…that’s really what I was hoping to get some insight into. The OSU/PSU/Nebraska/UM thing is mostly visable on the surface.

I know about your diabolical plan.

by KevinHD on Jun 14, 2010 9:08 PM EDT up reply actions

Part of the reason doing this stuff is so annoying: you forget obvious things like the when Penn State joined the conference.

I know about your diabolical plan.

by KevinHD on Jun 14, 2010 9:10 PM EDT up reply actions

Sorry to point the only mistake

I’m a douchea.

Great work Kevin HD!

by speedomike on Jun 14, 2010 9:41 PM EDT up reply actions

No worries, I’m pretty sure it was all the talk about the 1994 MNC that got that number in my head. So really it’s the AP voters from that year we have to blame, not you.

I know about your diabolical plan.

by KevinHD on Jun 14, 2010 9:59 PM EDT up reply actions

East / West

The division that certainly makes the most geographical sense and guarantees OSU and Michigan won’t have a rematch in the B10 championship game:

East: PSU, OSU, UM, MSU, Indiana Schools
West: Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois Schools

Average of Avg:
East: 6.27
West: 6.72

Average of Med:
East: 6.17
West: 6.83

Average of Best:
East: 4.67
West: 5.5

Average of Worst:
East: 7.33
West: 8.67

By these metrics, the East as a whole, on average, is clearly, consistently better than the West, and this includes Nebraska’s obviously flawed numbers. I don’t wish to dispute this. I do wish to ask the following:

Who cares?

So the East is a little better than the West. Some might consider this a good thing due to the increased intradivisional balance. And it’s not like the West won’t put forth a good team to the conference championship game: since PSU joined the B10, 4 of the 5 (80%, Nebraska clearly doesn’t count for this) different West Teams have not only won a Big Ten title, but have either won a solo B10 title or gone undefeated and tied for it. In the East, that number is only 50%, and one of those teams is a down-for-the-forseeable-future Michigan program.

Even if the West (or the East, for that matter) didn’t put a good team in the title game, ask 1996 Nebraska, 1998 Kansas State, or 2003 Oklahoma if having to play another very good team at the end of the year is such a great thing.

I’m not saying it will happen, and I’m not saying it necessarily should. What I will say is that it maintains rivalries, keeps rivalry games to a once-a-year event, has solid balance, and makes geographical sense.

To know I can trust this fix of injustice time after time

by ckmneon on Jun 14, 2010 11:03 PM EDT reply actions

Stick with the East/West split

I think people make too big a deal about the “competitive balance” thing. Most of the situations I’ve seen are just the East/West geographical split with one team switched. All of these seem kind of arbitrary. It’s ridiculous to assume that the same teams are always going to be the best and the same teams are always going to be the worst. This mentality is what gives us mediocre michigan and craptastic notre dame fanbases that are living off of past glories, And remember that one year when jNW didn’t suck horribly, or that other year when even Illinois was good enough to make it the BCS?

The most important thing is to preserve the rivalries, and since most rivalries are formed against nearby schools, the East/West split is actually the best scenario for this. And if they have a protected crossover game that will preserve even more rivalries.

The competitive balance ideas out there are kind of pointless given that who’s competitive changes year to year. So unless you’re rebalancing constantly they make no sense. And if you are rebalancing constantly it’s virtually impossible to schedule and maintain traditional rivalries. That’s a dealbreaker for me. We need to all stop overthinking the division alignment question and just go East/West.

by HawkeyeInExile on Jun 15, 2010 5:12 AM EDT up reply actions

I get your point

There are always exceptions. But, like Kevin said, generally the same teams are strong/weak. I think it’s fair to say that there’s a better chance that Nebraska will be better most years than Minnesota.

by speedomike on Jun 15, 2010 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions

Michigan has been in decline since 1966, according to this

Fantastic.

We are gonna shock them with 5,000 mega watts of raw ROO POWER.

by psuwxman on Jun 15, 2010 7:13 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs

Why has nobody mentioned the viability of 6 two team divisions?

In this case, we’d bump Nebraska down to third. Then, OSU’s rival is Indiana, Michigan’s is Illinois, and on down the list. We can then have a 4-round tournament ~~at the end~~ in the middle of each season. That way, we’ll definitely know who’s REAL best.

"Every player we have, someone-maybe a parent, a grandparent, someone-poured their soul into that young man. They are handing that young man off to us. They are giving us their treasure, and it's our job to make sure we give them back that young man intact and ready to face the world."

-J.V.Pa.

by psume06 on Jun 15, 2010 7:44 AM EDT reply actions

And if no clear winner emerges from all of this, a two-man sack race will be held on consecutive Sundays until a champion can be crowned.

Sometimes I write here- www.thegallyblog.com

by TheK-GunNeedsReloaded on Jun 15, 2010 8:11 AM EDT up reply actions

Ohio State with a .900 winning percentage in five years? Man I HATE HATE, but they sure do win.

@EpicTripod
Black Shoe Diaries
Success With Honor

by Jeff Junstrom on Jun 15, 2010 8:13 AM EDT reply actions

My attempt at divisional alignment and matchups

Ground rules:
- OSU/UM need to be in same division to prevent “THE GAME PRESENTED BY BARBASOL” being played twice in a row (sure they could be placed apart and have a protected cross-division game, but that would still allow for the possibility of a duplicate game)
- Because of #1, PSU must be in the opposite division for some balance; same with the new kid on the block who takes overs Iowa’s spot in the division alignment game
- The remaining 8 should be evenly split, just as if they were picking a schoolyard kickball team
- The geography requirement is horses***; all that matters is competitive balance and maintaining rivalries

The Divisions
Division The First
- Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Purdue, Minnesota

Division The Second
- Penn State, Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan St., Illinois, Indiana

Game rules:
- 5 in division games, 3 OOD games (1 protected rival – PSU/OSU (the Land Grant Trophy will heat the room via kindling at the BTN Award Show in ’11), UM/MSU, UW/NU, IOWA/MINN, ILL/NW, IND/PUR)
- Because of #1, you will only go 3 years off rotation of any team OOD that is not protected; I can live with this
- In division games are always last, and preferentially the last two, to ensure that repeats do not occue between last game of the year and CCG

With all due respect to Iowa and Wisky, I put them on the second tier, alone, behind the now Big Four. So the remaining six teams are interchangeable, but I think this spreads the competitive balance pretty well.

@EpicTripod
Black Shoe Diaries
Success With Honor

by Jeff Junstrom on Jun 15, 2010 8:26 AM EDT reply actions

Unfortunately

deep down, I think that the Powers in the Towers in Chicago don’t really give a good crap about PSU and their “rivals”, real or imagined. WE ARE the thumb in a BIG10 hand map right now.

by DerryPharmer on Jun 15, 2010 8:51 AM EDT up reply actions

Well this format allows OSU to keep the UM game as last in the regular season, while giving PSU/OSU its due yearly credit.

It also keeps UM/MSU as a yearly event and sets up a nice yearly PSU/NEB and WISC/NEB (because Bielema begged so hard) game.

@EpicTripod
Black Shoe Diaries
Success With Honor

by Jeff Junstrom on Jun 15, 2010 8:54 AM EDT up reply actions

I'm definitley not being critical

of the possibilities, but I won’t feel comfortable until I see a" carved in stone" schedule that treats us with some respect…..right now it’s, “Hey Nebraska’s here and we all want to play them!” I don’t want a made-up rivalry with Minnesota or jNWU.

by DerryPharmer on Jun 15, 2010 9:08 AM EDT up reply actions

They won't get rid of OSU/PSU.

Way too much money in the ratings game for that matchup to be split.

-J.V.Pa.

by psume06 on Jun 15, 2010 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions

Are we the thumb?

Even if you’re hung up on geography, the distances from Lincoln to Minneapolis and Iowa City are pretty darn close to the distances from State College to Columbus and The Whore.

Shortest routes, per Google Maps:

State College to
Columbus – 322 miles
Ann Arbor – 406 miles

Lincoln to
Iowa City – 301 miles
Minneapolis – 423 miles

"Nothing turns me on like doe estrus." - ReadingRambler

by leeharvey418 on Jun 15, 2010 9:05 AM EDT up reply actions

Not caught up too much

on travel times, but really about perception from other teams that WE ARE over here and the rest of the league in stacked in the middle West.

by DerryPharmer on Jun 15, 2010 9:11 AM EDT up reply actions

Eh...

I think that perception will fade pretty fast the first time a hypothetical Big Ten alumnus in Toledo or Grand Rapids starts making plans for a road trip to Lincoln.

"Nothing turns me on like doe estrus." - ReadingRambler

by leeharvey418 on Jun 15, 2010 9:15 AM EDT up reply actions

Good point

by DerryPharmer on Jun 15, 2010 9:16 AM EDT up reply actions

I think the Big Ten realizes what we mean to the conference

by speedomike on Jun 15, 2010 10:59 AM EDT up reply actions

just to be clear

The goal here is not to prevent Ohio State and Michigan from playing in the B10CG…but rather to prevent any two teams from playing in that game in back to back weeks.

Basicly, you have to play inter-divisonal games early in the season, so if there is a rematch, it’s not silly.

Pitt currently has both a better football and basketball team than Michigan.

by jesse. on Jun 15, 2010 1:46 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions

Agreed.

That’s why OSU and UM are necessarily tied together, but would have to forego the notion that THE GAME is the last game of the season. They have two choices: play in opposite divisions and play earlier in the year, or play in the same and maintain THE GAME as last conference game of the year. I don’t care which it is.

@EpicTripod
Black Shoe Diaries
Success With Honor

by Jeff Junstrom on Jun 15, 2010 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions

*AREN'T necessarily tied together

@EpicTripod
Black Shoe Diaries
Success With Honor

by Jeff Junstrom on Jun 15, 2010 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions

well, they could always opt out of the conference championship game

and play their “Game” the following week. Sorta like that other old, but mostly irrelevant, rivalry game: Army-Navy.

by The JuggerNitt on Jun 15, 2010 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions

I think geography shouldn't play a role in alignment

it didn’t work out so well with the Nintendo 12. Conferences should be based on rivalries and competitive fairness only. But, that’s just my opinion

"They say in Happy Valley that if God wasn’t a Penn State fan, why is the sky blue and white?" Fortt said. "Who am I to argue with God?"

by amandakt on Jun 15, 2010 9:23 AM EDT reply actions

Agree 100%

As was previously noted, divisions only really matter in football anyway. Make the most competitive divisions you can for that, and you’ll have a good product.

"Nothing turns me on like doe estrus." - ReadingRambler

by leeharvey418 on Jun 15, 2010 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions

Junny's divisions/protected rivals preserve all existing rivalries

save Wisconsin/Iowa, who are rewarded by playing Nebraska every year.

(I’d like to have Northwestern in the Clarence Campbell, but I’m not wedded to it.)

by Aaron PSU on Jun 15, 2010 9:38 AM EDT up reply actions

Plus, Iowa would get us every year

…and as any Hawkeye fan will tell you, that’s practically a guaranteed win for them.

"Nothing turns me on like doe estrus." - ReadingRambler

by leeharvey418 on Jun 15, 2010 9:44 AM EDT up reply actions

Only at Beaver Stadium

We’re 7-4 at Iowa/Kinnick Stadium, baby!

by Aaron PSU on Jun 15, 2010 10:19 AM EDT up reply actions

Eh

The conference alignment had almost nothing to do with the demise of the Big 12, and was quite successful in getting Big 12 teams to the BCS title game. Plus geographically sane divisions make it much easier to remember who goes where.

by drothgery on Jun 15, 2010 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions

Sigh

Remember the old days when tickets were just $36?

Mike
Black Shoe Diaries

by BSD on Jun 15, 2010 11:37 AM EDT reply actions

Speaking of

interesting look at the cost of season tickets.

I know about your diabolical plan.

by KevinHD on Jun 15, 2010 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions

I was just checking that out.

West Virginia tops the Big East prices at $325, sixty bucks less then Penn State’s $385.

And THREE THOUSAND DOLLARS for a Notre Dame ticket in the upper decks? The effing balls on these guys, I tell you…

@EpicTripod
Black Shoe Diaries
Success With Honor

by Jeff Junstrom on Jun 15, 2010 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions

Are these for first time season ticket buyers? Or do most schools require you to donate to renew as well?

by HawkeyeInExile on Jun 15, 2010 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions

99.9% postitive its renewal. At least at PSU it is, so I have to assume the donation structure is similar elsewhere.

@EpicTripod
Black Shoe Diaries
Success With Honor

by Jeff Junstrom on Jun 15, 2010 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions

Article is wrong for Penn State, so who can say?

The opportunity to purchase season football tickets requires a minimum $200 donation, not $50.

by Aaron PSU on Jun 15, 2010 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions

Yikes

Texas Tech sounds upset about this deal.

broncohighway

Tech & Okie St pissed because KU, Mizzou, K-State, Iowa State and Baylor agree to give their shares of buyout $ to UT, OU and A&M. 27 minutes ago via PockeTwit

Tech on the phone w/ Pac 10. Have regents meeting scheduled for 2 pm today. 25 minutes ago via PockeTwit

RT @ChrisLevel: “If Beebe is having a press conference at 2:30pm he won’t have anything definitive from Texas Tech’s end to report.” 23 minutes ago via PockeTwit

by gumbercules on Jun 15, 2010 2:23 PM EDT reply actions

Boom goes the dynamite?

"Nothing turns me on like doe estrus." - ReadingRambler

by leeharvey418 on Jun 15, 2010 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions

I think they'd just let them go.

Texas would get another home game every other year. But at that point, they’re bordering on a Big East quality conference.

by gumbercules on Jun 15, 2010 2:38 PM EDT up reply actions

But ~~at that point,~~ they’re bordering on a Big East quality conference.

-J.V.Pa.

by psume06 on Jun 15, 2010 10:26 PM EDT up reply actions

Good. I'd be mad as hell and not willing to take it anymore as well.

Texas literally extorted the remaining schools to keep the B12 in tact. The Mizzou governor just said the B12 is better without Neb and Colo. That’s fine, you only lost a dickload of money to make your conference better!

@EpicTripod
Black Shoe Diaries
Success With Honor

by Jeff Junstrom on Jun 15, 2010 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions

…and more heads to fight against the Texas push for fascism.

I know about your diabolical plan.

by KevinHD on Jun 15, 2010 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions

To be fair

Penn State’s Big Ten opponents, 1966-1993: Illinois 2, Indiana 1, Iowa 9, Michigan 1, Michigan State 2, Minnesota 1, Nebraska 5, Northwestern 1, Ohio State 5, Purdue 0, Wisconsin 1. This is 20 games against the top 4 teams not including Penn State and just 5 against the bottom 4!

A majority of these games were against Iowa, and there is an issue on when we played them. The eight games against Iowa (discounting 1993 since that was the start of conference play for PSU) included a six year stretch from 1971-1976 when Iowa was unusually awful: all losing seasons, including an 0-11 season and a 1-10 season for a combined 15-50-1 record.

PSU did play tough Iowa squads in ‘83 and ’84 as Hayden Fry had been pacing the sidelines in his white sansabelt slacks for several years, still I think the percentages reflect PSU’s record across a broad spectrum of good and bad B1210 squads.

by Cairo on Jun 16, 2010 9:57 AM EDT reply actions

Now you are sounding like PSU fans

when they say that the only reason Ferentz is 7-2 against them is that he played against some horrible PSU teams in the first half of the decade.

by TEXaco on Jun 21, 2010 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions

East/West is the only way to go.

Anything else is going to seem cobbled together. The only extant protected football rivalries that an E/W split would break up would be Illinois-Indiana and Northwestern-Purdue, arguably the pillow-fightiest “rivalries” in the Big Ten.

Brunettes not fighter jets

by rockyh on Jun 17, 2010 4:19 PM EDT reply actions