Famous NCAA Dynasties

[colorado_loves_football]

I think you guys are comparing apples to oranges, personally.
Head-to-head, although one way to measure a conference's relative strength, isn't necessarily the 'best' way to 'rank' a confernece.
If I were you guys, I'd use that webpage I referred you to. I don't have the link available but it utilized a compartive ranking to 'guage' how competitive a conference was. When I find it, I'll let you know how they compared.
My guess would be that they are likely similiar, as both conferneces typically rank 'high' in the overall stadings, against each other.
Something I think might work in Big Ten's favor: more teams. That should 'sway' the balance of power toward their end of teh 'competitive' ledger.

[Spence]

I think you guys are comparing apples to oranges, personally.
Head-to-head, although one way to measure a conference's relative strength, isn't necessarily the 'best' way to 'rank' a confernece.
If I were you guys, I'd use that webpage I referred you to. I don't have the link available but it utilized a compartive ranking to 'guage' how competitive a conference was. When I find it, I'll let you know how they compared.
My guess would be that they are likely similiar, as both conferneces typically rank 'high' in the overall stadings, against each other.
Something I think might work in Big Ten's favor: more teams. That should 'sway' the balance of power toward their end of teh 'competitive' ledger.

The best conference argument is a no win situation. There really isn't that much difference over all in the majors. You can find periods where one is better then the other, but over all they are very close.

[colorado_loves_football]

The best conference argument is a no win situation. There really isn't that much difference over all in the majors. You can find periods where one is better then the other, but over all they are very close.

This is true, to a point, but if you do a 'side-by-side' comparison of each conference, in the 1990's this source would appear to favor the SEC, over the ACC & Big 10.
http://mcubed.net/ncaaf/2005/conf2.htm

Personally, I am surprised at the results, I had assumed one (or the other) would have finished higher. The Big East makes an appearance, or two, as does the Big 8. But the SEC was the 'winner' as far as most years #1. (5)

[Spence]

This is true, to a point, but if you do a 'side-by-side' comparison of each conference, in the 1990's this source would appear to favor the SEC, over the ACC & Big 10.

That doesn't surprise me the SEC has the most consistently good teams.

[ktffan]

Buckeye fans have been on the athletic dept. to correct the mistakes, hopefully they will care enough to get it done one of these days.

Yes, athletic departments and conference do a bad job compiling statistics. However, the game by game detail is usually dead on. In Ohio State's case, except for a couple of games where they have the wrong location, they are dead on. That same is usually the case for other schools as well, however, if you see where they totalled the number, be suspicious.

[ktffan]

For the 90's...they rank the ACC above the B-10....

http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/boar ... eply&t=345

That would tell you what it's worth, given the statistics I gave you.

However, I would be interested in what your looking at, you copied the link from this post.

[ktffan]

The best conference argument is a no win situation. There really isn't that much difference over all in the majors. You can find periods where one is better then the other, but over all they are very close.

This is true, to a point, but if you do a 'side-by-side' comparison of each conference, in the 1990's this source would appear to favor the SEC, over the ACC & Big 10.
http://mcubed.net/ncaaf/2005/conf2.htm

We've already seen this site's rankings were screwball, but if they didn't have the SEC over overbody in the 90s, they'd really be messed up. The SEC kicked butt in the 90s.

[ktffan]

Alright, let's put a little thought into this. You did not object to my parameters of 1990-2000, but thinking about that, that really wasn't a good range to pick. My comment about the Big Ten being far better than the ACC, was historical. In light of your comments about FSU's good run, I trying to put the parameters along those lines, that's where I picked 2000, the end of their run, and I just grabbed around number for the other end at 1990. Since Florida State didn't start playing for the conference until 1992, I should have used that date. So, from here on, I'm going to compare the Big Ten and the ACC from 1992-2000. In yanking these years out, I'm not helping the ACC as they had some good years in 1990 and 1991, however, you can object if you like, however I'm trying to take the topic back on point.

Now, since it's the subject of the conference Florida State is playing in and the opponents Florida State plays, I'm going to pull Florida State's numbers from the statistics. To get an apt comparison, I will also pull Michigan's numbers from it (they had the best conference winning percentage). This will also favor the Big Ten, as I'm pulling out 1/9 of the ACC's numbers, but only 1/11 of the Big Ten's. To be more than fair, I will also pull out Ohio State's numbers and we'll see how the rest of the conference did. So from here on, when I refer to the Big Ten, it will be the teams that were in the Big Ten at the time minus Michigan and Ohio State and when I refer to the ACC, it will be the teams that were in the ACC minus Florida State. The game examined will be non-conference games including bowls.

Overall winning percentage:

Big Ten (180-107-2)--0.626
ACC (152-99-1)--0.605

Winning percentage against I-A teams:

Big Ten (174-107-2)--0.618
ACC (122-95-1)--0.562

Records against "majors" (This includes Southwest teams):

Big Ten (77-83-2)--0.481
ACC (65-76-1)--0.461

Records against AP ranked teams (game ranked):

ACC (23-35-0)--0.397
Big Ten (28-47-1)--0.375

Records against teams that finished ranked in the AP:

Big Ten (20-53-0)--0.274
ACC (14-41-0)--0.255

Records against AP top 10 teams:

Big Ten (9-23-0)--0.281
ACC (1-9-0)--0.100

Records against AP final top 10 teams:

Big Ten (3-24-0)--0.111
ACC (0-11-0)--0.000

Records against bowl teams:

Big Ten (47-67-1)--0.413
ACC (36-58-0)--0.383

Records in bowls:

Big Ten (19-17-0)--0.528
ACC (14-18-0)--0.438

Records against major conference champions:

Big Ten (9-11-0)--0.450
ACC (8-10-0)--0.444

Home record against major teams:

Big Ten (39-23-1)--0.627
ACC (25-25-0)--0.500

Road record against major teams:

ACC (24-32-1)--0.430
Big Ten (16-37-1)--0.306

Top 5 finishes:

Big Ten 4
ACC 1

Top 10 finishes:

Big Ten 8
ACC 3

Top 15 finishes:

Big Ten 14
ACC 6

Top 20 finishes:

Big Ten 17
ACC 13

Top 25 finishes:

Big Ten 23
ACC 17


Other than a couple categories, the Big Ten shows very well in comparision. It's not hard to see how the ACC got the reputation of not giving Florida State much competition. This mistakenly translates to Florida State not playing much competition, which as I've covered, was not the case. Florida State played an excellent schedule, but that came more from the non-conference schedule than it did from the inconference schedule. The in-conference schedule was mediocre to poor.

[Spence]

That was my point. Not that Florida St. was bad or that their non-conference schedule was bad, just that they received an automatic bid for in conference play and that the ACC as a whole wasn't that strong. Times have changed and the ACC with the B-East raid has strengthened their conference into one of the best.

[billybud]

I wonder sometimes about the effect of a conference championship game...is it good or is it bad ? Individually, a team definitely has more risk liability having to play a season ending game against another pretty good team...in the ACC, it would mean a 13th game against a Miami, FSU, VT, Clemson, BC and the like.

I don't like the aspect of possible rematches...for instance, in the ACC, it could be very likely that FSU play Miami to start and close the season. FSU and Miami have done that already (three games in ten months....played 'em in October, January, and Labor Day)...

FSU and Fla had to rematch in '96....both ended 11-1 with the sole loss to the other...Fla's win was last in the bowl and thus Fla won the National Champonship..(Hmmm...I wonder if any other team has played the National Champ twice in a season?) ...I do not like replays of games with blood rivals...Can you see Michigan and Ohio State going at it twice a year?

[ktffan]

I wonder if any other team has played the National Champ twice in a season?)

It has happened 17 times (for wire service champions). The last time was Colorado last year. The only other team to split the games was UCLA in 1965.

[Derek]

I wonder if any other team has played the National Champ twice in a season?)

It has happened 17 times (for wire service champions). The last time was Colorado last year. The only other team to split the games was UCLA in 1965.

Georgia and LSU in 2003. The year LSU won the national championship.

They met in the regular season and LSU won, by 7.

They met in the SEC championship game and LSU won by 21 (or something)

So it has happened and it was in the SEC. Probably the only time it could happen would be in a Conference championship game.

[ktffan]

So it has happened and it was in the SEC. Probably the only time it could happen would be in a Conference championship game.

It has happened 17 times. The time in 1965 was before conference championship games. UCLA played Michigan State in the regular season and then in the Rose Bowl. Of the 17 times it happened, 3 of them were for teams in the same conference.

[ktffan]

I should clarify that. Of those 17, 11 times teams played both champions in a split poll.

[colorado_loves_football]

The best conference argument is a no win situation. There really isn't that much difference over all in the majors. You can find periods where one is better then the other, but over all they are very close.

This is true, to a point, but if you do a 'side-by-side' comparison of each conference, in the 1990's this source would appear to favor the SEC, over the ACC & Big 10.
http://mcubed.net/ncaaf/2005/conf2.htm

We've already seen this site's rankings were screwball, but if they didn't have the SEC over overbody in the 90s, they'd really be messed up. The SEC kicked butt in the 90s.

Again, you are putting your own 'spin' on the figures. Who said they were screwball? You are the only one I know of.
Sure, it's still a work in progress, doesn't mean the information listed isn't relevant.
You admit the information has validity then you have to qualify your statement. For the record, I trust their information a lot more than I trust yours, and for good reason. Wake up and smell the coffee and donuts.
You lean left, so far left, I think maybe you should consider using a cane.