Sagarin Conference Ratings, 2001-2005

[rwperu34]

I think a few things can be drawn from these numbers. First, the big 5 conferences are all relatively equal. You can make an argument that the Pac 10 or ACC has been the best over the last five years, but all five are really close. The second, conclusion is, the Big East is no longer in the same league as the other five. Not that they could ever compete with the previous big 4, but from 1998-2000, the Big (l)East could finish ahead of the ACC. That just won't happen again under the current structure.

Average Conference Rating, 2001-2005
Central Mean
1. ACC, 78.44
2. Big 12, 77.98
3. Pac 10, 77.97
4. SEC, 77.44
5. Big 10, 77.61
6. Big East, 74.30

Simple Average
1. Pac 10, 78.30
2. Big 12, 77.90
3. ACC, 77.78
4. BIg 10, 77.22
5. SEC, 77.07
6. Big East, 73.80

Combined
1. Pac 10, 156.28
2. ACC, 156.22
3. Big 12, 155.88
4. Big 10, 154.82
5. SEC, 154.51
6. Big East, 148.09

Poll style ranking (6 pts for 1st, 5 for 2nd...etc)
Central Mean
1. ACC, 23
2. Big 12, 21
3. Pac 10, 20
4. SEC, 19
5. Big Ten, 17
6. Big East, 4

Simple Average
1. Pac 10, 24
2. Big 12, 21
3t. ACC, 19
3t. SEC, 19
5. Big 10, 17
6. Big East, 4

Combined
1. Pac 10, 44
2t Big 12, 42
2t. ACC, 42
4. SEC, 38
5. Big 10, 34
6. Big East, 8

[MyTurn2Raise]

If this is football, I'd say that the Big East is right up there with the ACC again this year

[rwperu34]

While the Big East is looking good at 22-7 non conference right now, their strength of schedule is too weak for them to be considered in the same league as the ACC. Once the conference winning % drops from 74% to 57%, the SOS is going to kill them.

Non conference record, as of 9-27-2006
1. SEC, 22-6. .786
2. Big 10, 27-9, .750
3. Big East, 22-7, .738
4. Pac 10, .731
5. ACC, 19-9, .679
6. Big 12, 31-15, .673