New W/L records against current Big 12

[jaretac]

After taking out win/loss records against Colorado and Nebraska.

Total
Ou 77-27 = 74%
UT 77-28 = 73%
KSU 56-34 = 62%
TTU 62-43 = 59%
A&M 58-47 = 55%
MU 45-45 = 50%
OSU 48-57 = 46%
KU 28-62 = 31%
ISU 27-63 = 30%
BU 15-90 = 14%

We only need two more wins than Kansas to move back into 8th for wins. Obviously much more need to catch up with everyone else. Very sobering despite having some better seasons over the past decade.

 

[koolclone]

Let's just start over

Kick some ***, take no names. The new Iowa State Cyclones in the new big 12. Texas and Oklahoma haven't always been unbeatable to have lost a quarter of their games.

 

[Boomer]

My Thoughts: The first few years of the Big XII was weak & Kansas State feasted while on their upswing

Baylor... i mean for serious....

Oklahoma State has benefited from their recent upswing

& lastly I will be jacking this but I will credit jaretac of CF for the leg work

 

[ISUAgronomist]

If you want to see something funny post this on the Rivalries forum on TexAgs and watch the Tech Tards come out of the woodwork.

 

[jaretac]

Re: Let's just start over

Kick some ***, take no names. The new Iowa State Cyclones in the new big 12. Texas and Oklahoma haven't always been unbeatable to have lost a quarter of their games.

To give Texas Credit, they were hurt bad (in these new records) by losing Nebraska and Colorado. At the end of 2009 Texas was at nearly 80% in the old Big 12. With the loss of Colorado and Nebraska combined with a bad season they dropped to 73% in basically one season. To put that in perspective, ISU would have to win 10 straight conference games (with no loses) in order to raise our percentage by the same amount that Texas dropped this past season.

On the flip side if we average 4 wins per season for the next 3 seasons, we will come up 3 percentage points. In my opinion that should be an attainable goal considering that won't even be 50% in conference play.

 

[ShopTalk]

This is a very interesting stat listing.

Probably the biggest surprise to me is that KSU is #3, especially with all the South is dominant talk.

Also that TT is ahead of A&M and MU is right below that, especially when you consider fan's perceptions of where teams are. I'm sure most A&M fans and maybe even TT fans would be surprised to see KSU ahead of them in the standings. And TT fans have to LOVE being ahead of A&M!

I think it is fair to say that competition and movement up and down of teams is probably the greatest it has ever been in the Big 12 right now.

That offers great opportunity to the schools in the lower half and great risk or challenge to those who want to keep their standing in the top half.

 

[awd4cy]

After looking at this list it really does make me feel better that we were really on a whole level higher than Baylor. I'm a little suprised that they only won 14% of their conference games, that really is awful.

 

[jaretac]

So I was slightly off on a few of my figures.

BU= 14%
ISU= 30%
KU= 33%
KSU= 61%
MU= 52%
OU= 74%
OSU= 46%
UT= 74%
A&M= 55%
TTU= 59%


Also here are some more interesting stats, again with Colorado and Nebraska removed

Against North Opponents
OU= 80%
UT= 77%
KSU= 71%
A&M= 67%
TTU= 63%
OSU= 57%
MU= 49%
KU= 47%
ISU= 33%
BU= 32%

Against South Opponents
UT= 73%
OU= 72%
TTU= 57%
MU= 54%
KSU= 51%
A&M= 51%
OSU= 41%
ISU= 27%
KU= 20%
BU= 7%

And if you follow this through with the new configurment.

OU= 80x4=320, 72x5=360, 320+360=680/9= 75.5% expected
UT= 77x4=308, 73x5=365, 365+308=673/9= 74.7% expected
TTU= 63x4=252, 57x5=285, 252+285=537/9= 59.7% expected
A&M= 67x4=268, 51x5=255, 268+255=523/9= 58.1% expected
KSU= 71x3=213, 51x6=306, 306+219=519/9= 57.7% expected
MU= 49x3=147, 54x6=324, 147+324=471/9= 52.3% expected
OSU= 57x4=228, 41x5=205, 228+205=433/9= 48.1% expected
ISU= 33x3=99, 27x6=162, 162+99=261/9= 29% expected
KU= 47x3=141, 20x6=120, 120+141=261/9= 29% expected
BU= 32x4=128, 7x5=35, 35+128=165/9= 18.1% expected

 

[ricochet]

After looking at this list it really does make me feel better that we were really on a whole level higher than Baylor. I'm a little suprised that they only won 14% of their conference games, that really is awful.

If ISU was in the south and Baylor in the north what do you think the percentages would look like? Do you think ISU would still have a higher winning percentage?

 

[hiltonisheaven]

If ISU was in the south and Baylor in the north what do you think the percentages would look like? Do you think ISU would still have a higher winning percentage?

According to Jaretac's last post isu, although terrible, did have a slightly higher win% against the north and the south than baylor.

 

[Istate]

The most concerning aspect of this to me is that I think a safe argument can be made that Baylor is on a better trajectory than we are, and we no longer have the softer schedule playing only the north teams every year. Baylor has out-recruited us the last two springs, and they will do so again this year. If ISU is passed by Baylor on the field, that doesn't leave a lot of teams below us to trump. I think we are a better football school than Kansas. I think KSU and ISU will be battling to be in the next rung above KU. Then you look at Baylor, TTU, and OSU in the next tier up. Missouri and aTm 2nd from the top, and OU and Texas firmly in another dimension.

That's a tough group of football teams. Maybe I'm over-estimating what Briles is doing at Baylor. Maybe you can't make Baylor into a consistent winner. If I'm giving them too much credit, that moves them down to our level leaving the bottom four teams having to sweep their peers and go undefeated in the OOC to become bowl eligible. The good news is that I think we will pull the occaisional upset of OSU, Mizzou, TTU, and aTm. If we happen to get two, maybe even three, in the same year, that's when we have a great year with a possible new year's bowl!

 

[CyDude16]

A new year's bowl, abide a BCS bowl, means almost nothing now....

 

[Sammy11]

The most concerning aspect of this to me is that I think a safe argument can be made that Baylor is on a better trajectory than we are, and we no longer have the softer schedule playing only the north teams every year. Baylor has out-recruited us the last two springs, and they will do so again this year. If ISU is passed by Baylor on the field, that doesn't leave a lot of teams below us to trump. I think we are a better football school than Kansas. I think KSU and ISU will be battling to be in the next rung above KU. Then you look at Baylor, TTU, and OSU in the next tier up. Missouri and aTm 2nd from the top, and OU and Texas firmly in another dimension.

That's a tough group of football teams. Maybe I'm over-estimating what Briles is doing at Baylor. Maybe you can't make Baylor into a consistent winner. If I'm giving them too much credit, that moves them down to our level leaving the bottom four teams having to sweep their peers and go undefeated in the OOC to become bowl eligible. The good news is that I think we will pull the occaisional upset of OSU, Mizzou, TTU, and aTm. If we happen to get two, maybe even three, in the same year, that's when we have a great year with a possible new year's bowl!

1- I see it similar to how you see it as to BU's trajectory. Recruiting is picking up although it still has a ways to go. The potential has always been there as a school with strong academics, hot coeds, and a location within 3 hours of each major texas metro area should have a good setup to recruit to. It has worked for every other sport so far but our admin pre-Ian McCaw really screwed things up. Bad hires, little support for football facilities until recently, etc was just the tip of the iceberg in terms of getting in our own way. The fact that we have broken the bank on our new DC Phil Bennett, the new practice facilities, and assistant coach salaries sends a big message in contrast to the past.

2- I think ISU has a better shot than people give you credit for. A good coach can help turn things and Rhoads is very good. You have the toughest weather situation and distance situation to get TX kids but winning can trump that IMO. You have every bit the shot KSU, KU, and MU have although MU is ahead of both our schedules right now.

3- Turner Gill is a good coach but the issue I always had with him was not KU hiring him, but who he hired as Coordinators.
Chuck "3rd and" Long earned his nickname in Norman where any D with a strong DL pass rush would whip his OL and kill his QB who he repeatedly has taking deep drops. He took a strong mid-major offensive team at SDSU and ran the offense into the ground as HC. KU can't recruit the same talent as OU and I see KU struggling when their OL isn't senior laden and talented.

Carl "Wow" Torbush: Nickname earned by this pic...

Success came with Mack's recruits in a down ACC...
Failure came as HC of that UNC team
as DC at A&M...
as DC at KU...
and mediocre results elsewhere. KU's defensive scheme was poor to say the least last year beyond the simple talent issues and the athletes he could recruit at A&M (Johnny Jolly, Melvin Bullitt, etc) should not have resulted in the horrible defenses he turned out.

I understand he has cancer now and his assistants will take over. I pray for a strong recovery for the guy as he seems to have a reputation as a quality person.

So I see KU doing very little.

 

[ajk4st8]

Dont we have 1 winning conference record EVER?

Hard to put together any decent stats with that.

 

[intrepid27]

Great work. I never would have guessed Mizzou has better record against the South than the North, albeit slight.

 

[jaretac]

Couple things people need to keep in perspective,

The 9 games instead of 8 is what is making the schedule tougher and nothing else! The idea that we lost some of our cupcakes is ridiculous. Below is our current winning percentage against all Big 12 teams (current and former), guess which is which:

62%
40%
40%
37%
28%
26%
20%
20%
14%
12%
0%

I'm sure most of you got the bottom one and maybe the top one right, but I wonder how many of you had Colorado as the 6th on the list, below three South teams? The other three south teams makes up the bottom three with Nebraska right above them. Removing Nebraska and Colorado from our conference win percentage actually helped our conference winning percentage.

Nebraska and Colorado combine for about 2 wins every 5 years for ISU; where Baylor, OkState, and Texas Tech combine for 6 wins over the same time frame if played yearly. Under the old configuration we would only 6 wins over 10 years which is still better than playing Nebraska and Colorado annually.

As for the idea that certain schools "seem to be on the up tick, even though we have had success against them in the past we won't be so lucky in the future", I don't buy it. Look at KU and their recent history. Texas just two years ago played for a NT and last year they won one conference game.

A few years ago I said that ten years from now Florida, USC, Texas, Ohio State, Oklahoma, and Alabama may very well be mediocre. I pointed out that though all those schools have had semi-constant success it is impossible to keep that high of success for long and eventually they will fade back down to lower bowl games again with a losing season here and there, making way for other schools to leap frog. Look at what has happened at all but two of those schools. None of them are down for the count but all seem far less daunting. There are always constant swings of power and even if OSU seems impossible, Texas probably appears more winnable. After all, before last season we had 0% success against them.

For those that are interested here are the answers to the above stats.

62% BU, 40% KU, 40% MU, 37% OSU, 28% TTU, 26% CU, 20% KSU, 20% NU, 14% UT, 12% A&M, 0% OU

 

[KillBilly]

If you want to see something funny post this on the Rivalries forum on TexAgs and watch the Tech Tards come out of the woodwork.

If you're an Aggie, you know the rule: Ag-nerds keep quiet unless spoken too. You don't want to spend the rest of today hanging from a tree branch or locker hook...do you?

 

[cygrads]

If you're an Aggie, you know the rule: Ag-nerds keep quiet unless spoken too. You don't want to spend the rest of today hanging from a tree branch or locker hook...do you?

Why is it that Tech and Baylor fans hate TAM? It seems like they hate TAM more than UT fans.

 

[Sammy11]

Why is it that Tech and Baylor fans hate TAM? It seems like they hate TAM more than UT fans.

A&M is obnoxious to all in proximity to them. They have never given any respect to either Baylor or Tech even when Tech under Leach was spanking them every year. There are aggie-induced violent incidents in the series histories and a complete militaristic delusion in their fanbase. Rubs us all the wrong way. Texas by comparison is the cocky because they are good program, still somewhat normal.

 

[weR138]

Why is it that Tech and Baylor fans hate TAM? It seems like they hate TAM more than UT fans.

Have you been to an ISU/aTm game?