Helmet Team Ranking Exercise

[medinabuckeye1]

But I don't think they will ever go on a clip like they used to be, winning conference titles almost every year. The conference is much better/deeper than it was back in those days.

Nobody will but that isn't just because the conference is better/deeper, it is also because there are no more co-championships.  Per the B1G Media guide (link:  http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/big10/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/2016-17/prospectus/prospectus.pdf the Wolverines have 42 league titles.  By my quick count, 26 or more than half were co-championships. 

Consider this another way:
Per the aforementioned B1G Media guide, heading into the 2016 season there had been 172 league champions.  Subtract the five won by UW, MSU, and tOSU in the B1GCG era and you get 167 in the pre-CG era.  Then add one for tOSU's vacated 2010 title and you get 168 league titles awarded in the 115 years from 1896-2010.  On average that works out to just under 1.5 league titles awarded per year.  Thus, with the advent of the B1GCG the total number of league titles awarded has been reduced by about 0.5 per year. 

Getting back to Michigan:
In my opinion your characterization of the way Michigan used to be as "winning conference titles almost every year" somewhat exaggerates the Wolverines historical success.  I submit that it should be amended to "winning conference titles about every other year." 

AFAIK, the Wolverines never won more than five-straight.  They accomplished that from 1988-1992.  I think you make a good point.  It would be a lot harder to do that now.  Ohio State was (relatively) down at that time, Wisconsin was a bottom-feeder, Penn State was an independent, Nebraska was in the Big8, etc.  That was also the best Michigan ever did in terms of league titles.  Overall Michigan has been in the league for 111 years (11 from 1896-1906 and 100 from 1917-2016).  They have won 42 league titles which works out to a little better than one every three years. 

The Wolverines have two major league title droughts.  They won only one title in the 18 years from 1951 through 1968 and they haven't won any in the 12 years since 2004.  If you back out those 30 years and that one title they won 41 league titles in their other 81 years in the league.  That is a rate of almost exactly one every other year. 

[Cincydawg]

Not too many years ago, the SEC champs were varied as well.  All sorts of teams in the top 6 won it.

Now, it's pretty much one team and a bunch of also runs.  Such things do tend to cycle a bit to some extent.  We don't expect UK to win the SEC in say 2023, but it would not be a shock if any of the top 6 did and Alabama was say 10-3.

[847badgerfan]

I know I exaggerated M's prosperity a bit, but I was trying to make a point. That's all.

The point still stands though. They will not win at a clip like they did moving forward. Too many things stacked against them to do that.

Hell, OSU was probably the best team last year and they didn't win the division.

[medinabuckeye1]

Hell, OSU was probably the best team last year and they didn't win the division.

That has and will continue to happen a lot now that we have a CG. 
2011:  Old rules it would have been MSU, with the CG it was UW. 
2012:  Old rules it would have been Nebraska (because tOSU was ineligible), with the CG it was UW. 
2013:  Old rules it would have been tOSU and MSU as co-champs, with the CG it was MSU. 
2014:  Ohio State either way. 
2015:  Old rules it would have been Iowa, with the CG it was MSU. 
2016:  Old rules it would have been tOSU and PSU as co-champs, with the CG it was PSU. 

In the six years we have had a CG we have obviously had six champions:  UW(2), MSU(2), tOSU, PSU.  With no CG we would have had eight:  tOSU(3), MSU(2), UNL, IA, PSU. 

[PSUinNC]

Just checking to make sure this thing works...

[OrangeAfroMan]

Not too many years ago, the SEC champs were varied as well.  All sorts of teams in the top 6 won it.

Now, it's pretty much one team and a bunch of also runs.  Such things do tend to cycle a bit to some extent.  We don't expect UK to win the SEC in say 2023, but it would not be a shock if any of the top 6 did and Alabama was say 10-3.

I'll very curious to see which of the "others" in the SEC finally wins the conference.  It's got to happen sometime, right?  Arkansas has come the closest in '08 I think, losing by 10.  The other non-6 teams to get to Atlanta all got trounced. 

[Anonymous Coward]

I know I exaggerated M's prosperity a bit, but I was trying to make a point. That's all.

The point still stands though. They will not win at a clip like they did moving forward. Too many things stacked against them to do that.

Hell, OSU was probably the best team last year and they didn't win the division.

I can't tell what you mean:

(1) If your point is that no one will win at that clip, then I agree. But that's not really interesting or meaningful. The CCGs prevent that for everyone. What is interesting is whether Michigan will over the next 100 years have the most Big Ten championships (as they have so far) or a much more modest ranking. Whether they arrive at the same rate as the first 42 is irrelevant if 100 years from now we see that they still arrived more often for Michigan than anyone else.

(2) On the other hand, if your point is that Michigan "will not" be one of the conference's obvious two best teams over long stretches of time, then your wording is far too certain -- it's dishonestly certain. No one can know that. As a hypothesis, sure. Anything is possible, but I'd say it is more probable that you are misinterpreting a historically anomalous stretch as...not anomalous and closer to a new standard.

About #2: Check back in ten years. Not because something great will "hopefully" start then, but because there's good evidence that it recently and already has. And that amount of time will make it more difficult for us to use short-sighted metrics.

[Cincydawg]

I'll very curious to see which of the "others" in the SEC finally wins the conference.  It's got to happen sometime, right?  Arkansas has come the closest in '08 I think, losing by 10.  The other non-6 teams to get to Atlanta all got trounced.

The 2012 championship game seemed to me to be pretty close.

[847badgerfan]

I can't tell what you mean:

(1) If your point is that no one will win at that clip, then I agree. But that's not really interesting or meaningful. The CCGs prevent that for everyone. What is interesting is whether Michigan will over the next 100 years have the most Big Ten championships (as they have so far) or a much more modest ranking. Whether they arrive at the same rate as the first 42 is irrelevant if 100 years from now we see that they still arrived more often for Michigan than anyone else.

(2) On the other hand, if your point is that Michigan "will not" be one of the conference's obvious two best teams over long stretches of time, then your wording is far too certain -- it's dishonestly certain. No one can know that. As a hypothesis, sure. Anything is possible, but I'd say it is more probable that you are misinterpreting a historically anomalous stretch as...not anomalous and closer to a new standard.

About #2: Check back in ten years. Not because something great will "hopefully" start then, but because there's good evidence that it recently and already has. And that amount of time will make it more difficult for us to use short-sighted metrics.

The odds are stacked against anyone winning 42 titles in 100 years. As I said, OSU was the best team last year and even they got tripped up. Michigan was probably 2nd best, and a loss at IOWA tripped them up.

M won a lot of championships when it was the Big 2/Little 8. There might still be a Little 8, but now there is a pretty clear top 6 (or even 7 or 8) that can beat anyone on any given day. It didn't used to be like that.

[Anonymous Coward]

The most meaningful stat for the conference's brass is to either be *the* team winning the most championships or at least very close. So far, that's been Michigan. You are conflating (a) "but they won't keep winning them at the same rate" with (b) "Michigan won't still be #1."

"(a)" is boring because not only is it true for everyone, but it is also an apples to oranges comparison. "(b)" is the point the matters.

Michigan will be just as giddily cheeky in 100 years if, over that next stretch, it again has the most conference championships. Whether that means 18 or 25 over 100 years is immaterial. All that matters is whether it is the most. And if not #1, what matters is the margin between Michigan's titles over the next 100 years and whichever opponent is #1 instead.

TL;DR(...)

I guess my point is that when you say something like "42 so far isn't sustainable going forward," you are sharing a comment with very little content. The raw number is much less significant than its conference rank.

You need to decide whether you want your comment to be "In my opinion, Michigan won't be #1 in conference titles going forward," then ante up.

[847badgerfan]

Hah!

I just found out that typing an 8 next to a ) gives you that "cool" smiley face above.

Ante up what? I'll be 150 in 100 years. Good luck collecting.

[medinabuckeye1]

The most meaningful stat for the conference's brass is to either be *the* team winning the most championships or at least very close. So far, that's been Michigan. You are conflating (a) "but they won't keep winning them at the same rate" with (b) "Michigan won't still be #1."

"(a)" is boring because not only is it true for everyone, but it is also an apples to oranges comparison. "(b)" is the point the matters.

Michigan will be just as giddily cheeky in 100 years if, over that next stretch, it again has the most conference championships. Whether that means 18 or 25 over 100 years is immaterial. All that matters is whether it is the most. And if not #1, what matters is the margin between Michigan's titles over the next 100 years and whichever opponent is #1 instead.

TL;DR(...)

I guess my point is that when you say something like "42 so far isn't sustainable going forward," you are sharing a comment with very little content. The raw number is much less significant than its conference rank.

You need to decide whether you want your comment to be "In my opinion, Michigan won't be #1 in conference titles going forward," then ante up.

Michigan isn't #1 and hasn't been for 50+ years or arguably ever. 

From the establishment of the conference in 1896 up through when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor league titles were as follows:

• 16 Minnesota
• 15 Michigan
• 8 Illinois
• 7 Chicago

From 1942 through 2016 conference titles are as follows:

• 30 Ohio State
• 27 Michigan
• 9 Michigan State
• 9 Wisconsin

[utee94]

USC and Texas and Michigan just don't carry the same cache to me as they did 10 years ago.

I think USC has the right coach now, but we'll see. Things can change in a hurry out there, as we've seen.

Michigan seems to have the right coach, but can he sustain without burning out himself, his coaches and his players?

I'm not sold on Hermann just yet. He did good things at Houston for sure, but he was also had a foundation built for him when he got there. Sumlin did a good job there too, as did Briles before him. The other guy before Hermann.. not so much. He was not a good coach.

I don't disagree, but who are you going to replace them with?  Who are you going to move up, to move those three down? 

[Anonymous Coward]

Hah!

I just found out that typing an 8 next to a ) gives you that "cool" smiley face above.

Ante up what? I'll be 150 in 100 years. Good luck collecting.

I'm guessing that your comment doesn't mean what you think it means. I think you mean to predict that Michigan is going to fall back. But by focusing on rate-of-Big-Ten-titles, that's not what you are saying at all. Michigan could easily have a lesser rate of championships and still have the best rate of championships.

The raw number for the rate isn't as important as the ranking of that rate.