The SEC battered four Bowl opponents, going 4-1 with an average score of 39-18 to return to the dominance of the past decade, leaving the Pac-12 as the only other conference with a chance to catch the SEC by the end of bowl season (see table of all Bowl Results by conference below).
Based on the SEC’s +10 rating going into the bowl games (one point behind the Big 12), they projected to go 2.7-2.3 in the first five Bowl Games and win by an average of 2.2 points. In fact, only Texas A&M lost (21-27 to Louisville) to give the SEC a 4-1 mark with an average margin of 21.0 points – 18.8 points per game better than expectations, due to three teams (Auburn, LSU, and Mississippi State) with a combined losing record in the SEC destroying teams from the muchimproved American (Memphis), ACC (NC State), and Big 12 (Texas Tech)
The same system that calculated the SEC falling slightly out of first place at the end of the last season and again in pre-conference play this year shows the SEC surge to a +16.8 points over the average conference, almost a touchdown better than the Pac-12 and more than 10 points better than any other conference..
| Conf | Season Rnk | Conference Bowl W-L vs. Exp. | Bowl Pts+/Gm | New Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEC | 10 | 4-1, 1.0 above exp. | 18.8 | 16.8 |
| P12 | 10 | 5-2, 0.6 above exp. | 1.3 | 11.1 |
| B10 | 8 | 3-2, 0.2 above exp. | -1.6 | 5.8 |
| B12 | 11 | 1-2, 0.6 below exp. | -14.0 | 5.5 |
| ACC | 7 | 4-5, 0.7 below exp. | -5.1 | 3.9 |
| Amer | 0 | 2-6, 1.7 below exp. | -6.1 | -3.6 |
| Mt.W | -10 | 4-4, 0.8 above exp. | 12.1 | -4.4 |
| CUSA | -9 | 3-2, 0.4 above exp. | 0.4 | -8.3 |
| Mid-A | -6 | 3-5, 1.5 below exp. | -10.6 | -12.8 |
| SB | -17 | 2-2, 0.6 above exp. | 7.0 | -14.0 |
Fans once again face a season without a bowl match-up between the SEC and a Pac-12 conference ranked 2nd once again. While the Pac-12 is 5-2, that comes in games in which they were expected to go 4.4-2.6 – out performing their seven opponents so far by just 1.3 points more per game than expected in light of their +10 ranking for the regular season (tied with the SEC for second). Therefore, the Pac-12 only improved 1.1 points—to 11.1, pending their final three games.
The Big 12 fell all the way from 1st to 4th with both Texas Tech and Oklahoma getting blown out in games that were expected to be close, though Baylor’s win over UNC was strong.
Despite their conference champions lopsided loss, the Big Ten overall moved up a spot to 3rd with Nebraska and Wisconsin pulling out big wins over the Pac-12. The Pac-12’s hopes to beat out the SEC would hinge on the Big Ten now getting upsets over the SEC in three remaining match-ups and the Pac-12 dominating their final three games.
The big winner in the Group of 5 was the Mountain West, which redeemed a terrible early season with four upsets, including Boise State’s 55-7 blowout of Northern Illinois and San Diego State’s 42-7 upset of Cincinnati. The Mountain West surged from 9th to 7th during the Bowl Season, and nearly passed the American as the top Group of 5 Conference.
| Conf | Team | Pts+ | Wins+ | Opponent | Pred | Score | Opp | Win=1 | Pwin |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. SEC | Florida | Michigan | -5 | 0 | 0 | fri1 | 35% | ||
| 1. SEC | Georgia | Penn St | 5 | 0 | 0 | sat12 | 65% | ||
| 1. SEC | Tennessee | Northwestern | 5 | 0 | 0 | fri12 | 65% | ||
| 1. SEC | Arkansas | Kansas St | 6 | 0 | 0 | Sat3 | 66% | ||
| 1. SEC | Mississippi | Oklahoma St | 2 | 0 | 0 | Fri8 | 55% | ||
| 1. SEC | Alabama | 27 | 21% | Michigan St | 11 | 38 | 0 | 1 | 79% |
| 1. SEC | Auburn | 26 | 65% | Memphis | -5 | 31 | 10 | 1 | 35% |
| 1. SEC | LSU | 28 | 48% | Texas Tech | 1 | 56 | 27 | 1 | 52% |
| 1. SEC | Mississippi St | 20 | 43% | NC State | 3 | 51 | 28 | 1 | 57% |
| 1. SEC | Texas A&M | -7 | -51% | Louisville | 1 | 21 | 27 | 51% | |
| 1. SEC | 4-1, 1.3 above exp. | 18.8 | 1.3 | SEC New Rating 16.8 | 4.0 | 2.7 | |||
| 2. P12 | Stanford | Iowa | 7 | 0 | 0 | Fri5 | 70% | ||
| 2. P12 | Arizona St (H) | West Virginia | -2 | 0 | 0 | Sat10 | 45% | ||
| 2. P12 | Oregon | TCU | -2 | 0 | 0 | Sat6 | 45% | ||
| 2. P12 | Washington St | 9 | 56% | Miami FL | -3 | 20 | 14 | 1 | 44% |
| 2. P12 | Utah | 3 | 36% | BYU | 4 | 35 | 28 | 1 | 64% |
| 2. P12 | Washington | 7 | 33% | Southern Miss | 6 | 44 | 31 | 1 | 67% |
| 2. P12 | California | 9 | 27% | Air Force | 10 | 55 | 36 | 1 | 73% |
| 2. P12 | Arizona | -5 | 18% | @ New Mexico | 13 | 45 | 37 | 1 | 82% |
| 2. P12 | USC | -2 | -50% | Wisconsin | 0 | 21 | 23 | 50% | |
| 2. P12 | UCLA | -12 | -64% | Nebraska | 4 | 29 | 37 | 64% | |
| 2. P12 | 5-2, 0.6 above exp. | 1.3 | 0.6 | P12 New Rating 11.1 | 5.0 | 4.4 | |||
| 3. B10 | Michigan | Florida | 5 | 0 | 0 | fri1 | 65% | ||
| 3. B10 | Penn St | Georgia | -5 | 0 | 0 | sat12 | 35% | ||
| 3. B10 | Northwestern | Tennessee | -5 | 0 | 0 | fri12 | 35% | ||
| 3. B10 | Iowa | Stanford | -7 | 0 | 0 | Fri5 | 30% | ||
| 3. B10 | Ohio St | Notre Dame | 6 | 0 | 0 | Fri1 | 66% | ||
| 3. B10 | Michigan St | -27 | -21% | Alabama | -11 | 0 | 38 | 21% | |
| 3. B10 | Nebraska | 12 | 64% | UCLA | -4 | 37 | 29 | 1 | 36% |
| 3. B10 | Wisconsin | 2 | 50% | USC | 0 | 23 | 21 | 1 | 50% |
| 3. B10 | Minnesota | 6 | 48% | C Michigan | 1 | 21 | 14 | 1 | 52% |
| 3. B10 | Indiana | -1 | -45% | Duke | -2 | 41 | 44 | 45% | |
| 3. B10 | 3-2, 0.2 above exp. | -1.6 | 0.2 | B10 New Rating 5.8 | 1.0 | 0.4 | |||
| 4. B12 | West Virginia | @ Arizona St | 2 | 0 | 0 | Sat10 | 55% | ||
| 4. B12 | Kansas St | Arkansas | -6 | 0 | 0 | sat3 | 34% | ||
| 4. B12 | Oklahoma St | Mississippi | -2 | 0 | 0 | Fri8 | 45% | ||
| 4. B12 | TCU | Oregon | 2 | 0 | 0 | Sat6 | 55% | ||
| 4. B12 | Baylor | 9 | 45% | North Carolina | 2 | 49 | 38 | 1 | 55% |
| 4. B12 | Texas Tech | -28 | -48% | LSU | -1 | 27 | 56 | 48% | |
| 4. B12 | Oklahoma | -23 | -56% | Clemson | 3 | 17 | 37 | 56% | |
| 4. B12 | 1-2, 0.6 below exp. | -14.0 | -0.6 | Big12 New Rating 5.5 | 1.0 | 1.6 | |||
| 5. ACC | Clemson | 23 | 56% | Oklahoma | -3 | 37 | 17 | 1 | 44% |
| 5. ACC | Louisville | 7 | 51% | Texas A&M | -1 | 27 | 21 | 1 | 49% |
| 5. ACC | Duke | 1 | 45% | Indiana | 2 | 44 | 41 | 1 | 55% |
| 5. ACC | Virginia Tech | -10 | 18% | Tulsa | 13 | 55 | 52 | 1 | 82% |
| 5. ACC | Pittsburgh | -10 | -34% | @ Navy | -6 | 28 | 44 | 34% | |
| 5. ACC | NC State | -20 | -43% | Mississippi St | -3 | 28 | 51 | 43% | |
| 5. ACC | North Carolina | -9 | -45% | Baylor | -2 | 38 | 49 | 45% | |
| 5. ACC | Miami FL | -9 | -56% | Washington St | 3 | 14 | 20 | 56% | |
| 5. ACC | Florida St | -19 | -65% | Houston | 5 | 24 | 38 | 65% | |
| 5. ACC | 4-5, 0.7 below exp. | -5.1 | -0.7 | ACC New Rating 3.9 | 4.0 | 4.7 | |||
| 6. Amer | Houston | 19 | 65% | Florida St | -5 | 38 | 24 | 1 | 35% |
| 6. Amer | Navy (H) | 10 | 34% | Pittsburgh | 6 | 44 | 28 | 1 | 66% |
| 6. Amer | Tulsa | 10 | -18% | Virginia Tech | -13 | 52 | 55 | 18% | |
| 6. Amer | Connecticut | 1 | -31% | Marshall | -7 | 10 | 16 | 31% | |
| 6. Amer | South Florida | -7 | -43% | W Kentucky | -3 | 35 | 45 | 43% | |
| 6. Amer | Temple | -15 | -50% | Toledo | 0 | 17 | 32 | 50% | |
| 6. Amer | Memphis | -26 | -65% | Auburn | 5 | 10 | 31 | 65% | |
| 6. Amer | Cincinnati | -41 | -66% | San Diego St | 6 | 7 | 42 | 66% | |
| 6. Amer | 2-6, 1.7 below exp. | -6.1 | -1.7 | Amer New Rating -3.6 | 2.0 | 3.7 | |||
| 7. Mt.W | San Diego St | 41 | 66% | Cincinnati | -6 | 42 | 7 | 1 | 34% |
| 7. Mt.W | Nevada | 8 | 60% | Colorado St | -3 | 28 | 23 | 1 | 40% |
| 7. Mt.W | Boise St | 51 | 56% | N Illinois | -3 | 55 | 7 | 1 | 44% |
| 7. Mt.W | San Jose St | 10 | 48% | Georgia St | 1 | 27 | 16 | 1 | 52% |
| 7. Mt.W | New Mexico (H) | 5 | -18% | Arizona | -13 | 37 | 45 | 18% | |
| 7. Mt.W | Air Force | -9 | -27% | California | -10 | 36 | 55 | 27% | |
| 7. Mt.W | Utah St | -1 | -49% | Akron | -1 | 21 | 23 | 49% | |
| 7. Mt.W | Colorado St | -8 | -60% | Nevada | 3 | 23 | 28 | 60% | |
| 7. Mt.W | 4-4, 0.8 above exp. | 12.1 | 0.8 | Mt.W New Rating -4.4 | 4.0 | 3.2 | |||
| 8. CUSA | W Kentucky | 7 | 43% | South Florida | 3 | 45 | 35 | 1 | 57% |
| 8. CUSA | Louisiana Tech | 13 | 34% | Arkansas St | 6 | 47 | 28 | 1 | 66% |
| 8. CUSA | Marshall | -1 | 31% | Connecticut | 7 | 16 | 10 | 1 | 69% |
| 8. CUSA | Southern Miss | -7 | -33% | Washington | -6 | 31 | 44 | 33% | |
| 8. CUSA | MTSU | -10 | -38% | W Michigan | -4 | 31 | 45 | 38% | |
| 8. CUSA | 3-2, 0.4 above exp. | 0.4 | 0.4 | CUSA New Rating -9.3 | 3.0 | 2.6 | |||
| 9. Mid-A | Toledo | 15 | 50% | Temple | 0 | 32 | 17 | 1 | 50% |
| 9. Mid-A | Akron | 1 | 49% | Utah St | 1 | 23 | 21 | 1 | 51% |
| 9. Mid-A | W Michigan | 10 | 38% | MTSU | 4 | 45 | 31 | 1 | 62% |
| 9. Mid-A | BYU | -3 | -36% | Utah | -4 | 28 | 35 | 36% | |
| 9. Mid-A | C Michigan | -6 | -48% | Minnesota | -1 | 14 | 21 | 48% | |
| 9. Mid-A | Ohio | -4 | -55% | Appalachian St | 2 | 29 | 31 | 55% | |
| 9. Mid-A | N Illinois | -51 | -56% | Boise St | 3 | 7 | 55 | 56% | |
| 9. Mid-A | Bowling Green | -47 | -89% | Ga Southern | 16 | 27 | 58 | 89% | |
| 9. Mid-A | 3-5, 1.5 below exp. | -10.6 | -1.5 | Mid-A New Rating -11.8 | 3.0 | 4.5 | |||
| 10. SB | Ga Southern | 47 | 89% | Bowling Green | -16 | 58 | 27 | 1 | 11% |
| 10. SB | Appalachian St | 4 | 55% | Ohio | -2 | 31 | 29 | 1 | 45% |
| 10. SB | Arkansas St | -13 | -34% | Louisiana Tech | -6 | 28 | 47 | 34% | |
| 10. SB | Georgia St | -10 | -48% | San Jose St | -1 | 16 | 27 | 48% | |
| 10. SB | 2-2, 0.6 above exp. | 7.0 | 0.6 | SB New Rating -14.0 | 2.0 | 1.4 |
This table lists each bowl participant from the conference. Each team’s projected margin is based on how much better or worse they are than their conference average in the Massey Ratings—and assuming their conference regular season rating was still the same.
For example, Auburn played 10 points worse than the average SEC team coming into the game, so based on the SEC’s +10 average they were basically a +0 coming into the game. Memphis was +5 points better than the average American Athletic team, which ranked as a +0, so they were a +5. Therefore, if Memphis won the game by 5 points that would confirm both conferences should stay around a +10 and a +0 respectively. The fact that Auburn won 31-10 means they exceeded expectations by 26 points (thus the +26 after Auburn in the table above), and because the -5 gave them a 35% chance of winning the game, they also earn a +65% for the conference for that game.
The fourth column shows the opponent, and the next numbers are the projected margin based on the previous paragraph, the actual score of the game, a “1” if the game was a win, and finally the percent chance the team was given based on the previous paragraph.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.