Unbeaten teams in conference histories

[Blue Hen]

Seasons per unbeaten teams (entire league histories)

Unbeatens--seasons----season per unbeaten------conference
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'

90-111, 1.23, B10
58-74, 1.28 , SEC
10-16, 1.60, BEC
33-54, 1.64, ACC
51-92, 1.80, P10
31-60, 1.94, MAC
4-8, 2.00 , MWC
3-8, 2.00, SBC
5-11, 2.20 , CUSA
17-45, 2.65, WAC
4-11, 2.75 , B12

These are my personal 'count em up numbers' and I make mistakes , so corrections alway welcomed.

....But it looks like, from a statistical and historical perspective, that the B10 has been the easiest conference for 'running the table'....the SEC the next easiest. The B12, in its short history, has been the toughest.
Length of league histories, conf champ games, and # of league games played are certainly pertinent variables in all of this.

[GopherGuy]

Seasons per unbeaten teams (entire league histories)

Unbeatens--seasons----season per unbeaten------conference
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'

90-111, 1.23, B10
58-74, 1.28 , SEC
10-16, 1.60, BEC
33-54, 1.64, ACC
51-92, 1.80, P10
31-60, 1.94, MAC
4-8, 2.00 , MWC
3-8, 2.00, SBC
5-11, 2.20 , CUSA
17-45, 2.65, WAC
4-11, 2.75 , B12

These are my personal 'count em up numbers' and I make mistakes , so corrections alway welcomed.

....But it looks like, from a statistical and historical perspective, that the B10 has been the easiest conference for 'running the table'....the SEC the next easiest. The B12, in its short history, has been the toughest.
Length of league histories, conf champ games, and # of league games played are certainly pertinent variables in all of this.


Is this conference record only? Keep in mind that in the early days of conference play, teams only played 3 or 4 conference games (or sometimes even less). This fact disproportionately affects older conferences and especially the Big Ten. The list of teams that went unbeated in Big Ten play would include 1903 Northwestern (1-0-2), 1901 Wisconsin (2-0), 1904 Michigan (2-0), 1906 Minnesota (2-0), 1906 Michigan (1-0) and many other teams with similar records. It's hard to draw a conclusion about how difficult it is to run the table when your table consists of 2 or 3 games.

[Blue Hen]

yeah, conference records only. ...and yes, my last paragraph acknowledges that point about the small # of conference games in the early days.

[buckeyejim]

Just curious, do you include team if they ONLY had a tie? If you do, then I'd like to see undefeated AND untied. In other words, PERFECT conference records and without any blemishes at all.

[GopherGuy]

yeah, conference records only. ...and yes, my last paragraph acknowledges that point about the small # of conference games in the early days.

Well, your last paragraph vaguely mentioned that the age of the conference could have an influence. It didn't mention that the Big Ten's total included many 1-0, 2-0 and 3-0 teams as having "run the table". It also includes multiple teams that won fewer than half of their games (the previously mentioned 1-0-2 Northwestern and 1933 Minnesota's 2-0-4 record off the top of my head).

I think if you want any kind of meaningful comparison, you should use a minimum number of conference games. For instance, maybe you should only consider seasons in which the undefeated team played half or more of its conference foes.

[GatorGrad]

Yes, too many conferences played too few games back in the day. You really need a minimum # of conference games played to be able to run this report. I would say a minimum of 7 games since I believe all D1 conference play at least that many conference games currently. It would be nice if all conferences had the same # of teams and same format (either CCG or round robin.) It would be easier to compare a lot of stats between conferences. But there's obviously no chance of that happening anytime soon.

All I know is that since the SEC went to the CCG format in 1992, it has been a blast. You have exciting division races with our own title game at the end. One could argue that conferences with no CCG or no round robin also produce mythical championships since there is no playoff game at the end and no way for every team to play each other. That would be like if the national title was decided strictly based on winning % regardless of how many games were played or the fact that teams played only 10% of Division I-A, with no playoff - just the team finishing in first place is declared the "champ."

Co-championships are silly as well IMO. Honestly, it's hard for me to count conference championships unless there is a CCG format, round robin, or if there was only one unbeaten team. Otherwise, that can be as mythical as the national title IMO. OK maybe that's a little harsh. But let's just say that as a Gator, I value each of our six SEC Championship Game wins more than our first "official" SEC Championship in 1991...even though we went 7-0. Different schedules for different teams could have produced a different champ.

[buckeyejim]

Back in the day, there were seasons when one conference team might play 8 conference games but another school in that same conference might not play but 5 or 6. That was just plain dumb.

[Blue Hen]

A 'meaningful' comparrison was really not the point of the post.....just an historical/statistical factoid.
I went back and read my last paragraph. It reads " length of league histories........and number of league games played are certainly variables " I still don't see why this doesn't cover your concerns.

[Blue Hen]

I used 'unbeaten' only, bj. Help yourself to the unbeaten & untied records and please share. That would be interesting, too.