Duquesne Frog
Member
One of the many rationales we hear for not being "deserving" of consideration is the accepted myth that it is easier for non-AQ schools to end the season unscathed. Of course we know that what advocates of this myth fail to take under consideration is that while the non-AQ schools may have easier conference schedules to wade through, they also have a number of disadvantages that the AQ conference teams don't deal with both financially and with perception.
So is it really "easier" to go undefeated in non-AQ conferences? If the quality of a conference is a determining factor in teams going undefeated then it should be a piece of cake getting through the MAC or SBC, right?
The reality is mixed.
I went back and looked at the last 10 years in each conference and noted the number of times the champion of each conference finished the season undefeated in conference. Here they are from highest number to lowest:
T-1. MWC 7 (BYU 3 -- 2001, 2006, 2007; Utah 2 -- 2004, 2008; TCU 2 -- 2005, 2009)
T-1. WAC 7 (Boise 6 -- 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009; Hawaii 1 -- 2007)
3. Big East 5 (Miami 3 -- 2000, 2001, 2002; WVU 1 -- 2005; Cincy 1 -- 2009)
T-4. Big 12 4 (OU 2 -- 2000, 2004; Texas 2 -- 2005, 2009)
T-4. Sun Belt 4 (University of North Texas 3 -- 2002, 2003, 2004; Troy 1 -- 2009
6. Big 10 3 (OSU 2 -- 2002, 2006; Iowa 1 -- 2002)
T-7. PAC10 2 (USC 2 -- 2004, 2005)
T-7. SEC 2 (Auburn 1 -- 2005, Alabama 1 -- 2009)
T-7. MAC 2 (MiamiOh 1 -- 2003; Cent Mich 1 -- 2009)
T-7. CUSA 2 (USM 1 -- 2003; L'ville 1 -- 2004)
11. ACC 1 (FSU 1 -- 2000)
A few things to note about the above, the Big East and Sun Belt conferences have always only played 7 conference games (in fact the 2002 University of North Texas team only played 6 conference games) and the 2001 BYU and 2004 Utah teams also played only 7 conference games.
Conference championships muddle the data a little. For instance the 2003 OU team also went undefeated in conference during the regular season but lost to a Kansas State team that had lost 2 conference games that year. The 2008 Alabama and 2009 Florida teams also went undefeated in conference during the regular season but lost their conference championship games (2009 Florida to and also undefeated Alabama). The MAC has also cost itself two undefeated teams in championship games (Marshall 2001 and Ball St. 2008). But since the argument is that it is harder to get through the AQ conferences unscathed and the conference championship games are (usually but not always, see OU 2003) another hurdle to an undefeated season, they should probably count.
So since 2000, there have been 39 teams to make it to their bowl game undefeated in conference play. Seventeen have been from AQ conferences and 22 from non-AQ conferences. Fourteen of those 22 have come from the MWC and WAC, arguably the toughest of the five non-AQ conferences, and 6 of those 14 have been Boise.
So what does all this say? Well, clearly it has been "easier" to wade through the MWC and WAC undefeated than other conferences. But can it really be considered "easier" in the case of the MWC when you've had three teams do it multiple times in the last 10 years?
Meanwhile, what does it say that the "lesser" of the non-AQ conferences have not been any easier to get through unscathed than anybody else? And the ACC, which has not been a particularly strong conference of late, hasn't had an undefeated champion since 2000?
What this seems to point to isn't so much "ease" of going undefeated as a severe lack of parity in the MWC and the WAC. In the case of the WAC, it's pretty much been Boise and then everybody else for the entire decade. The case of the MWC is more interesting though because while the MWC has been the "Big 3" and everybody else for the whole decade, it's interesting that the "Big 3" have not been more effective in knocking each other out in the round robin. In fact, since TCU joined in 2005, the Big 3 have never all ended the season 1-1 against the other two. Someone has always come out with wins over both of the other two.
So at the end of the day, what does this all say? Is the myth valid? Yes and no, I think. It's hard to refute the numbers ... it has been quite commonplace for the MWC and WAC champions to get out of conference unscathed. But is it really "easier?" If it were easy, why don't more teams from the MAC and Sun Belt do it, especially given that the Sun Belt only plays 7 conference games? And if it were easy, why haven't SMU, Houston and Rice ... all schools that were nominally in a "have" conference that got relegated to a "have-not" conference had an easier road to success?
Long winded, I know ... but some food for thought as we wait for Saturday.
So is it really "easier" to go undefeated in non-AQ conferences? If the quality of a conference is a determining factor in teams going undefeated then it should be a piece of cake getting through the MAC or SBC, right?
The reality is mixed.
I went back and looked at the last 10 years in each conference and noted the number of times the champion of each conference finished the season undefeated in conference. Here they are from highest number to lowest:
T-1. MWC 7 (BYU 3 -- 2001, 2006, 2007; Utah 2 -- 2004, 2008; TCU 2 -- 2005, 2009)
T-1. WAC 7 (Boise 6 -- 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009; Hawaii 1 -- 2007)
3. Big East 5 (Miami 3 -- 2000, 2001, 2002; WVU 1 -- 2005; Cincy 1 -- 2009)
T-4. Big 12 4 (OU 2 -- 2000, 2004; Texas 2 -- 2005, 2009)
T-4. Sun Belt 4 (University of North Texas 3 -- 2002, 2003, 2004; Troy 1 -- 2009
6. Big 10 3 (OSU 2 -- 2002, 2006; Iowa 1 -- 2002)
T-7. PAC10 2 (USC 2 -- 2004, 2005)
T-7. SEC 2 (Auburn 1 -- 2005, Alabama 1 -- 2009)
T-7. MAC 2 (MiamiOh 1 -- 2003; Cent Mich 1 -- 2009)
T-7. CUSA 2 (USM 1 -- 2003; L'ville 1 -- 2004)
11. ACC 1 (FSU 1 -- 2000)
A few things to note about the above, the Big East and Sun Belt conferences have always only played 7 conference games (in fact the 2002 University of North Texas team only played 6 conference games) and the 2001 BYU and 2004 Utah teams also played only 7 conference games.
Conference championships muddle the data a little. For instance the 2003 OU team also went undefeated in conference during the regular season but lost to a Kansas State team that had lost 2 conference games that year. The 2008 Alabama and 2009 Florida teams also went undefeated in conference during the regular season but lost their conference championship games (2009 Florida to and also undefeated Alabama). The MAC has also cost itself two undefeated teams in championship games (Marshall 2001 and Ball St. 2008). But since the argument is that it is harder to get through the AQ conferences unscathed and the conference championship games are (usually but not always, see OU 2003) another hurdle to an undefeated season, they should probably count.
So since 2000, there have been 39 teams to make it to their bowl game undefeated in conference play. Seventeen have been from AQ conferences and 22 from non-AQ conferences. Fourteen of those 22 have come from the MWC and WAC, arguably the toughest of the five non-AQ conferences, and 6 of those 14 have been Boise.
So what does all this say? Well, clearly it has been "easier" to wade through the MWC and WAC undefeated than other conferences. But can it really be considered "easier" in the case of the MWC when you've had three teams do it multiple times in the last 10 years?
Meanwhile, what does it say that the "lesser" of the non-AQ conferences have not been any easier to get through unscathed than anybody else? And the ACC, which has not been a particularly strong conference of late, hasn't had an undefeated champion since 2000?
What this seems to point to isn't so much "ease" of going undefeated as a severe lack of parity in the MWC and the WAC. In the case of the WAC, it's pretty much been Boise and then everybody else for the entire decade. The case of the MWC is more interesting though because while the MWC has been the "Big 3" and everybody else for the whole decade, it's interesting that the "Big 3" have not been more effective in knocking each other out in the round robin. In fact, since TCU joined in 2005, the Big 3 have never all ended the season 1-1 against the other two. Someone has always come out with wins over both of the other two.
So at the end of the day, what does this all say? Is the myth valid? Yes and no, I think. It's hard to refute the numbers ... it has been quite commonplace for the MWC and WAC champions to get out of conference unscathed. But is it really "easier?" If it were easy, why don't more teams from the MAC and Sun Belt do it, especially given that the Sun Belt only plays 7 conference games? And if it were easy, why haven't SMU, Houston and Rice ... all schools that were nominally in a "have" conference that got relegated to a "have-not" conference had an easier road to success?
Long winded, I know ... but some food for thought as we wait for Saturday.
