Big Ten Analysis - 30 yr time frame

[Lucky77777s]

I figured the modern era of football is roughly 30 years old, so I figured it would make a nice statistical bench mark.

Here is the data I analyzed to compare the different teams in the Big Ten over that time period: overall record, Big Ten record, # of 8+ win seasons, bowl appearances, Rose Bowl appearances and BCS (Rose, Sugar, Fiesta and Orange) appearances.

Here are the results:

Iowa (Big Ten rank)

Overall record: 224-144-6 .609 (4th)
Big Ten record: 146-73-5 .667 (3rd, I even went by win % since PSU has played less games)
8+ win seasons: 16 (4th)
Bowl Games: 22 (4th)
Rose Bowls: 3 (tied w/ wiscy for 3rd)
BCS Bowls: 5 (4th)

Overall record vs. Big Ten opponents

Wisconsin: 21-7-1 (.75)
Northwestern: 21-8 (.72)
Purdue: 17-8-1 (.68)
Mich St: 16-8-1 (.67)
Minnesota: 20-11 (.65)
Indiana: 16-9 (.64)
Penn St: 9-6 (.6)
Illinois: 15-11 (.58)
Michigan: 7-15-1 (.32)
OSU: 4-18-1 (.18)

We have a winning record against everyone not named Michigan or OSU!

MSU, Illinois and Purdue all have losing overall records the past 30 years and only MSU has a winning Big Ten % at .531, a far cry from Iowa's .667. Wisconsin is our closest competition other than OSU, UM and PSU. However their overall win % is .561 vs. Iowa's .609, their Big Ten Win % is .48 vs our .667, they have 3 fewer 8 win seasons, same # of rose bowls, but one win to our none, and two fewer BCS bowl appearances. Iowa even managed to beat PSU in head to head record 9-6, Big Ten Win % .629 vs. .667 and Rose Bowl appearances 2 to 3.

I analyzed each team in the conference the same way I just did Iowa and here is the 30 year conference rankings:

1.(a) OSU, gave them the edge based on better recent success
1.(b) UM, head to head with OSU is 15-15-1 and by far the most Rose Bowls @ 11
3. PSU
4. Iowa
5. Wisconsin
6. MSU
7.(a) Illinois
7.(b) Purdue
9. Minnesota
10. Northwestern
11. Indiana

Nebraska would be 1(a) or (b) based on the criteria above.

So based on this I see no way you can put OSU and PSU in the same division as IN, PU, NW and IL. As the other div would be too strong top to bottom.

I also felt like posting this info as I had seen several posters from MSU and Wiscy coming over to other boards and stating they have better programs than Iowa. Sorry, but the numbers don't agree.

One last nugget. 30 years ago the Hawks went 5-6 overall 4-4 in the Big Ten, so their 30 yr number should only get better when looked at next year. Also, 10 years ago they went 1-10, so their 10 year number is going to look exponentially better.

Hope you enjoyed a look inside the numbers.

 

[MidnightBlueSix]

So based on this I see no way you can put OSU and PSU in the same division as IN, PU, NW and IL. As the other div would be too strong top to bottom.
QUOTE]

I think if you put OSU, PSU, and UM in the same division as PU, IU, and either IL school it gets a lot more manageable. I have a hard time with using any time frame for establishing competitive balance since 95+% of players and coaches at these schools weren't there even 10 years ago. I've made this point eslewhere but look at Miami. Until 2003 they were an elite program in the country, dominant over the Big East perennially. They've actually played at least once in every BCS game. However, after switching to the ACC, they've failed to complete a single double-digit win season and haven't been invited back to a BCS game. They even had a year they went 5-7 and another two where they finished at or one game below .500.

This actually makes two points at one time. First of all, using "competitive balance" is just an excuse for keeping UM, OSU, and PSU entrenched at the top of the conference with everyone else beneath them. Does anyone really think PSU will be just as successful without Paterno? Where is the silver lining around Michigan's storm cloud right now? They'll probably eventually right the ship but there's really nothing there right now to build on to convince me they're within a few years of winning the conference.

This actually also speaks to the problem with Nebraska. They've had really big years in the past but that was before joining the Big Ten (i.e. before Miami joined the ACC). It's easy to assume that they'll have relatively the same success in a new conference but it's far from a given. One interesting factor will be their recruiting power in Texas. For a long time, Nebraska has been able to recruit Texas by offering scholarships to players not offered by Texas, TAMU, and TTU. The idea was that if these players wanted to play in Texas in front of friends and family and also have a shot at winning the conference every year (sorry Baylor), they'd go to Nebraska. Well now that Nebraska doesn't play any games in Texas anymore, that draw is gone. How will they make up for the probably lack of Texas talent coming into the program?

Sorry I get longwinded, but I'm just tired of looking at everyone tie themselves in knots to come up with an even distribution of talent and big names in each division. If the West winds up getting beaten up by the East year in and year out (or vice versa), why not reshuffle the divisions at that point? It seems like the whole point as of now is to make sure Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, and Nebraska have the inside track at a CC game.

 

[83Hawk]

The modern era of football is 30 years old??

 

[tm3308]

So based on this I see no way you can put OSU and PSU in the same division as IN, PU, NW and IL. As the other div would be too strong top to bottom.
QUOTE]

I think if you put OSU, PSU, and UM in the same division as PU, IU, and either IL school it gets a lot more manageable. I have a hard time with using any time frame for establishing competitive balance since 95+% of players and coaches at these schools weren't there even 10 years ago. I've made this point eslewhere but look at Miami. Until 2003 they were an elite program in the country, dominant over the Big East perennially. They've actually played at least once in every BCS game. However, after switching to the ACC, they've failed to complete a single double-digit win season and haven't been invited back to a BCS game. They even had a year they went 5-7 and another two where they finished at or one game below .500.

This actually makes two points at one time. First of all, using "competitive balance" is just an excuse for keeping UM, OSU, and PSU entrenched at the top of the conference with everyone else beneath them. Does anyone really think PSU will be just as successful without Paterno? Where is the silver lining around Michigan's storm cloud right now? They'll probably eventually right the ship but there's really nothing there right now to build on to convince me they're within a few years of winning the conference.

This actually also speaks to the problem with Nebraska. They've had really big years in the past but that was before joining the Big Ten (i.e. before Miami joined the ACC). It's easy to assume that they'll have relatively the same success in a new conference but it's far from a given. One interesting factor will be their recruiting power in Texas. For a long time, Nebraska has been able to recruit Texas by offering scholarships to players not offered by Texas, TAMU, and TTU. The idea was that if these players wanted to play in Texas in front of friends and family and also have a shot at winning the conference every year (sorry Baylor), they'd go to Nebraska. Well now that Nebraska doesn't play any games in Texas anymore, that draw is gone. How will they make up for the probably lack of Texas talent coming into the program?

Sorry I get longwinded, but I'm just tired of looking at everyone tie themselves in knots to come up with an even distribution of talent and big names in each division. If the West winds up getting beaten up by the East year in and year out (or vice versa), why not reshuffle the divisions at that point? It seems like the whole point as of now is to make sure Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, and Nebraska have the inside track at a CC game.

Big Ten schools get Texas kids, too. Granted they would lose out on those who consider playing in Texas a high priority. But Texas is LOADED with talent. Iowa gets Texas kids, Michigan and Ohio State get Texas kids. If you have a good program, you can find players in Texas that will come and play for you, bottom line. And Nebraska certainly has a good program.

 

[tm3308]

The modern era of football is 30 years old??

The way the media defines the modern era is more like post-1940 (or similarly large timeframe). The game has changed a lot since then. While not an exact copy, the game today isn't WAY different than the game was in 1980. That's when passing started getting really big in the game. It's a better timeframe than what is typically defined as the modern era.

 

[MidnightBlueSix]

Big Ten schools get Texas kids, too. Granted they would lose out on those who consider playing in Texas a high priority. But Texas is LOADED with talent. Iowa gets Texas kids, Michigan and Ohio State get Texas kids. If you have a good program, you can find players in Texas that will come and play for you, bottom line. And Nebraska certainly has a good program.

Right, I didn't mean to suggest that now they'll get 0 Texas commits because they only go to Texas schools, only that one of Nebraska's biggest draws toward Texas students isn't there anymore. I'm sure they'll still get plenty of talented recruits and more than likely some from Texas, but I don't think you can underestimate the power of telling a 17-year-old he'll get to play in front of his friends and family at least once or more a year. Not to mention regional football coverage.

 

[tm3308]

Right, I didn't mean to suggest that now they'll get 0 Texas commits because they only go to Texas schools, only that one of Nebraska's biggest draws toward Texas students isn't there anymore. I'm sure they'll still get plenty of talented recruits and more than likely some from Texas, but I don't think you can underestimate the power of telling a 17-year-old he'll get to play in front of his friends and family at least once or more a year. Not to mention regional football coverage.

I agree, they'll probably suffer a little from not being about to offer that to them anymore. That'd be a pretty big deal to a lot of players.