Using the six BCS computer rankings, I have compiled the average rankings of all 10 FBS conferences and made some initial analyses.
Overall by average computer rankings:
1. XII - 42.3
2. SEC - 47.3
3. B1G - 47.8
4. PAC - 49.5
5. ACC - 58.0
6. AAC - 58.4
7. MWC - 72.9
8. SBC - 81.1
9. CUSA - 91.6
10. MAC - 96.4
As you can see, the American is a whisker behind the ACC for the overall average. The AAC actually ranked better than the ACC in 4 of the 6 BCS computers (Anderson & Hester, Colley, Massey, and Wolfe), but because the difference was large in the Sagarin (7.1 points) and Billingsley (3.9 points), compared to the other 4 (3.5 points - Wolfe, 2.7 points - Colley, 2.1 points - A&H, 0.4 points - Massey), the overall average skewed to the ACC.
You can also see just how big a gap there is between the AAC and the rest of the Non-A5. The AAC is closer to second than they are to seventh.
I also looked at the average ranking of the top 5 teams in each conference:
1. SEC - 9.2
2. B1G - 9.7
3. XII - 20.1
4. AAC - 21.0
5. PAC - 25.2
6. ACC - 31.9
7. MWC - 37.9
8. SBC - 53.8
9. CUSA - 58.3
10. MAC - 79.7
As you can see, the AAC is fourth overall in the rankings of the top 5 teams from each conference, and closer to third than to fifth. And yes, the MAC is really that bad. The top-ranked MAC team in the Billingsley rankings is 80th, and the top-ranked team in the Massey rankings is 81st. The best the MAC could do in any of the six computers was 51st.
I also looked at the average number of teams each conference had in the top 50.
1. SEC - 8.7
2. B1G - 7.8
3. XII - 6.7
tie PAC - 6.7
5. AAC - 5.8
6. ACC - 5.0
7. MWC - 3.8
8. SBC - 2.0
tie CUSA - 2.0
10. MAC - 0.0
Again, the AAC finished ahead of the ACC.
And the top 25
1. B1G - 6.0
2. SEC - 5.3
3. XII - 3.2
tie AAC - 3.2
5. PAC - 3
6. MWC - 1.3
7. ACC - 1
tie. SBC - 1
9. CUSA - 0
tie MAC - 0
Again, the AAC finished above the ACC and the PAC this time, too.
Overall by average computer rankings:
1. XII - 42.3
2. SEC - 47.3
3. B1G - 47.8
4. PAC - 49.5
5. ACC - 58.0
6. AAC - 58.4
7. MWC - 72.9
8. SBC - 81.1
9. CUSA - 91.6
10. MAC - 96.4
As you can see, the American is a whisker behind the ACC for the overall average. The AAC actually ranked better than the ACC in 4 of the 6 BCS computers (Anderson & Hester, Colley, Massey, and Wolfe), but because the difference was large in the Sagarin (7.1 points) and Billingsley (3.9 points), compared to the other 4 (3.5 points - Wolfe, 2.7 points - Colley, 2.1 points - A&H, 0.4 points - Massey), the overall average skewed to the ACC.
You can also see just how big a gap there is between the AAC and the rest of the Non-A5. The AAC is closer to second than they are to seventh.
I also looked at the average ranking of the top 5 teams in each conference:
1. SEC - 9.2
2. B1G - 9.7
3. XII - 20.1
4. AAC - 21.0
5. PAC - 25.2
6. ACC - 31.9
7. MWC - 37.9
8. SBC - 53.8
9. CUSA - 58.3
10. MAC - 79.7
As you can see, the AAC is fourth overall in the rankings of the top 5 teams from each conference, and closer to third than to fifth. And yes, the MAC is really that bad. The top-ranked MAC team in the Billingsley rankings is 80th, and the top-ranked team in the Massey rankings is 81st. The best the MAC could do in any of the six computers was 51st.
I also looked at the average number of teams each conference had in the top 50.
1. SEC - 8.7
2. B1G - 7.8
3. XII - 6.7
tie PAC - 6.7
5. AAC - 5.8
6. ACC - 5.0
7. MWC - 3.8
8. SBC - 2.0
tie CUSA - 2.0
10. MAC - 0.0
Again, the AAC finished ahead of the ACC.
And the top 25
1. B1G - 6.0
2. SEC - 5.3
3. XII - 3.2
tie AAC - 3.2
5. PAC - 3
6. MWC - 1.3
7. ACC - 1
tie. SBC - 1
9. CUSA - 0
tie MAC - 0
Again, the AAC finished above the ACC and the PAC this time, too.
Last edited:
