Big Ten Sports Ranking

Haspula

Haspula

All-American
The Wolverines' average Big Ten finish for 2012-13, among their 25 men's and women's teams, was 4.04, tops in the conference.

Nebraska's 21 teams had an average finish of 5.57, good for sixth place -- the same spot the Huskers occupied in 2011-12.

1. Michigan 4.04;

2. Minnesota 4.43;

3. Ohio State 4.64;

4. Penn State 4.92;

5. Illinois 5.24;

6. Nebraska 5.57;

7. Wisconsin 6.10;

8. Indiana 6.22;

9. Northwestern 6.29;

10. Michigan State 6.83;

11. Purdue 7.35;

12. Iowa 7.58.
Click to expand...
Source: http://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/life-in-the-red/michigan-is-king-in-average-b-g-finish/article_8a8744d8-c7ed-11e2-b05c-0019bb2963f4.html

Embarrassing, but at least we finished in the upper half

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's interesting to me. Are there programs dragging us way down besides men's basketball?

Football, baseball, women's basketball, softball, bowling and track and field (am I missing any?) are all notably above average or bordering on elite, within strictly the conference pool. Seems we should be higher.

 
This ranking is bogus since they don't weight the sports. (I think I said this last year when they came out with this ranking.) Is Michigan's first place in women's cross country really on par with Nebraska winning the Legends in football? I realize it would be arbitrary to weight the sports (and it would piss off the fans of women's cross country), but not weighting them produces silly results. Does Minnesota really have better athletics than tOSU, Penn State or Nebraska? That's just silly.

 
NUance said:
This ranking is bogus since they don't weight the sports. (I think I said this last year when they came out with this ranking.) Is Michigan's first place in women's cross country really on par with Nebraska winning the Legends in football? I realize it would be arbitrary to weight the sports (and it would piss off the fans of women's cross country), but not weighting them produces silly results. Does Minnesota really have better athletics than tOSU, Penn State or Nebraska? That's just silly.
Click to expand...
mrandyk said:
Why should one sport be worth more than the rest? That kind of defeats the purpose of this measure.
Click to expand...
When women's cross country pulls in 100,000 fans to a run/match/game/meet/whatever the hell it's called, and conference re-alignment tactics are centered around the logistics of television cross-country viewers and cross country provides millions upon millions of dollars to be spread among an entire athletic department, only then can cross country fans b!^@h about having less weight than football.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Iowa, meanwhile, languishes in the cellar, with an average finish of 7.58. Only Iowa and Michigan State failed to win a title of any sort.

 
mrandyk said:
Why should one sport be worth more than the rest?
Click to expand...
Because more Nebraska fans will come to see the Wyoming football game three months from today than all of the fans who have ever attended a Nebraska women's cross country meet in the history of that sport.;

For this article, the sports will be weighted in some manner. If you don't do any normalizing--as the article is presently written--then all sports are weighted equally. Which implies that women's cross country is just as important to NU's athletic program as our football team. Is this the case? How many Husker fans could name even one female cross country runner on this year's NU squad? Or ever?

mrandyk said:
That kind of defeats the purpose of this measure.
Click to expand...
Only if you actually believe Minnesota has a better athletic program than Ohio State, Penn State and Nebraska.
.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Football and men's basketball have their own awards, if those are the only two sports that matter then just relish them and ignore this. For the other twenty some sports and the celebration of the student athlete in general, we have this measure.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top