Something that has bothered me for a very long time is the way conferences (read:SEC) claim, that because they consistently win a bunch of bowl games, that they are the superior conference. You hear it all the time, “The SEC played in 11 bowls, and won 9, so they are the best conference.” or something similar. So this led me to doing some research and here’s what I found out:

Note: Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers, Missouri, and Texas A&M’s games were only used the years they were in the conferences, respectfully. 

In the past 10 years the SEC has played in 101 bowl games. Of those 101 games, the SEC has been the odds favorite to win in a whopping 72 (71.3%) games. As a conference, they only won 65(64.4%) of the 101. Of the 101 bowl games, 18 times they needed to count a win against a FCS(D-1AA) school to even be bowl eligible. As a conference, they have lost 7 games more than what they were favored.

   On the flip side of the coin, the Big Ten has played in 85 bowls over the last 10 years. They were the odds favorite to win in only 22(25.9%) of the bowl games. As a conference, they have won 34(40%) of those, totaling 12 more wins than predicted. To be fair, 10 of those teams needed a win against FCS(D-1AA) teams to become bowl eligible. 

Fact of the matter is that teams who are the underdog are supposed to lose and, way more often that not, typically do. How is it that the Big Ten gets matched up against teams superior, on paper, almost as often as SEC teams are in favorable games? How do they get away with this? 

In 2014 the Big Ten was the underdog in all 11 bowl games. This is the first year, in at least the last 10, that the Big Ten is favored in more games than not. Although, the SEC is still favored in just over half of theirs.