Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

tough to play a ball state the week after an emotional win..  We should know more after next week

Yes. I can't extend my gratitude enough, for Medina allowing us the use of his analytical brain.
Not just this, but breaking down the various tie breakers, and telling us what would need to happen in order for a team to win their division no matter how absurd it may be.
Plus basketball season, which teams only play once and where that game will take place, projecting wins and losses based on his tier system, the Big Ten Tourney tie breakers, what needs to happen in order for two teams to wind up on the same branch of the bracket, and so forth.
I don't know if he memorizes all that stuff, or programs it all into a series of spreadsheets. Either way, amazing talent. Thanks again for sharing it with us.

Yeah, I decided a long time ago that Medina is one of the smartest people I've ever "met."  Thanks, man, you helped me learn to speak B1Gese...

Yes. I can't extend my gratitude enough, for Medina allowing us the use of his analytical brain.
Not just this, but breaking down the various tie breakers, and telling us what would need to happen in order for a team to win their division no matter how absurd it may be.
Plus basketball season, which teams only play once and where that game will take place, projecting wins and losses based on his tier system, the Big Ten Tourney tie breakers, what needs to happen in order for two teams to wind up on the same branch of the bracket, and so forth.
I don't know if he memorizes all that stuff, or programs it all into a series of spreadsheets. Either way, amazing talent. Thanks again for sharing it with us.

Quote from: JerseyTerrapin on September 12, 2018, 10:14:25 AM

Yeah, I decided a long time ago that Medina is one of the smartest people I've ever "met."  Thanks, man, you helped me learn to speak B1Gese...

Thank you both.  
As far as tiebreakers that is mostly just going to the B1G website and working through them.  I find those to be fun logic problems.  When you do that a few times you quickly learn that details that seem minute can be huge.  For example, in the B1G there is a rule for multi-team ties that if all but two are eliminated you go back to H2H for those two.  
FWIW: the basketball tier system isn't mine.  It was a site thing that I think @ELA started, I just put it into a projection.  Before I found that here I had a similar system that I used myself.  Mine didn't have tiers, I just ranked the teams (1 to 11 back then) and then projected that the home team would always win unless the road team was at least three spots higher.  Example:

• I projected that #1, #2, and #3 would win all home games.  
• I projected that #4 would lose a home game against #1 and win all the others, etc.  

I came up with that because I always hated how the idiots on TV would talk about how Ohio State was really slumping or surging based on a few losses or wins that were pretty obviously predictable.  The tier system and my system eliminated that because we compare to projections instead of just looking at W's and L's as if they were all created equal.  

FWIW:
The sagrin rankings that @Hawkinole posted above are pretty close to ours with only two exceptions:

• We both have tOSU at #1.  
• He has PSU at #2, we have them at #3.  
• He has UW at #3, we them at #2.  
• We both have M at #4.  
• He has Iowa at #5, we have them at #6.  
• He has MSU at #6, we have them at #5.  
• We both have UMD at #7.  
• He has NU at #8, we have them at #11.  
• We both have MN at #9.  
• We both have UNL at #10.  
• He has IU at #11, we have them at #8.  
• We both have PU at #12.  
• He has IL at #13, we have them at #14.  
• He has RU at #14, we have them at #13.  

So Sagrin has Northwestern a lot higher and Indiana a lot lower than we do but otherwise we are +/-1.  

Well, Iowa did play the top 3 teams in the East last year. Won one, and lost another on the last play of the game.
FTR, UW also posted a losing record vs teams in the East Top 3 (0-1) in 2017.

I think this is a difficult metric to use because there are so few games.  Looking at what Badge posted:

• Illinois was equal against the B1G-E and B1G-W.  0-season
• Nebraska was equal against the B1G-E and B1G-W.  .333 against both
• Wisconsin was equal against the B1G-E and B1G-W.  1.000 against both not counting CG
• Northwestern was slightly worse against the B1G-E.  They went 2-1 against the East and 5-1 against the West so they would have been equal if they had lost one more B1G-W game.  Note that they had TWO OT wins in B1G-W games, Iowa and Nebraska.  
• Purdue was worse against the B1G-E.  They were 1-2 against the B1G-E and 3-3 against the B1G-W so they would have been equal if they had lost one more B1G-W game.  
• Minnesota was worse against the B1G-E.  They were 0-3 against the East and 2-4 against the West so they would have been equal if they had won one more B1G-E game.  Note that they lost to MSU by a FG and to UMD by a TD.  
• Iowa was worse against the B1G-E.  They were 1-2 against the East and 4-2 against the West so they would have been equal if they had won one more B1G-E game.  As you pointed out they played the three best B1G-E teams, beat the best one and lost the other two by two and seven points.  

In addition to it being so few games there is another potential problem with this metric.  To explain it, I'll use the example of HS tennis.  A friend of mine played HS tennis and you wouldn't think that there would be a lot of cheating in HS tennis but there is.  The way it is set up, each team is supposed to have their #1 play the other team's #1, then their #2 play the other team's #2 and their #3 play the other team's #3.  The cheating is basically ubiquitous because the easy way to get an advantage is to have your #3 play the other team's #1 then your #1 can play the other team's #2 and your #2 can play the other team's #3.  Even if their #1 is better than your #1 and their #2 is better than your #2 and their #3 is better than your #3 you can still get a 2-1 win as long as your #1 is better than their #2 and your #2 is better than their #3.  

The same thing can happen here.  If the worst teams in the B1G-W play the best teams in the B1G-E then the rest of the B1G-W teams can all potentially play B1G-E teams that are slightly worse than they are even if the B1G-E is better top-to-bottom.  

I think in general that these things balance out over enough games but that takes at least 3-4 seasons so looking at single-season results should always be treated as nothing more than a starting point.  

I have seen this mistake a couple times in this thread.  

Iowa was only 3-3 last year against the West, not 4-2 as reported above,   Iowa lost to NW, Wisc, and Purdue last year.

So last year Iowa was only 4-5 in conference overall.  Going 1-2 against the East and 3-3 against the West.

I think this is a difficult metric to use because there are so few games.  Looking at what Badge posted:

• Illinois was equal against the B1G-E and B1G-W.  0-season
• Nebraska was equal against the B1G-E and B1G-W.  .333 against both
• Wisconsin was equal against the B1G-E and B1G-W.  1.000 against both not counting CG
• Northwestern was slightly worse against the B1G-E.  They went 2-1 against the East and 5-1 against the West so they would have been equal if they had lost one more B1G-W game.  Note that they had TWO OT wins in B1G-W games, Iowa and Nebraska.  
• Purdue was worse against the B1G-E.  They were 1-2 against the B1G-E and 3-3 against the B1G-W so they would have been equal if they had lost one more B1G-W game.  
• Minnesota was worse against the B1G-E.  They were 0-3 against the East and 2-4 against the West so they would have been equal if they had won one more B1G-E game.  Note that they lost to MSU by a FG and to UMD by a TD.  
• Iowa was worse against the B1G-E.  They were 1-2 against the East and 4-2 against the West so they would have been equal if they had won one more B1G-E game.  As you pointed out they played the three best B1G-E teams, beat the best one and lost the other two by two and seven points.  

In addition to it being so few games there is another potential problem with this metric.  To explain it, I'll use the example of HS tennis.  A friend of mine played HS tennis and you wouldn't think that there would be a lot of cheating in HS tennis but there is.  The way it is set up, each team is supposed to have their #1 play the other team's #1, then their #2 play the other team's #2 and their #3 play the other team's #3.  The cheating is basically ubiquitous because the easy way to get an advantage is to have your #3 play the other team's #1 then your #1 can play the other team's #2 and your #2 can play the other team's #3.  Even if their #1 is better than your #1 and their #2 is better than your #2 and their #3 is better than your #3 you can still get a 2-1 win as long as your #1 is better than their #2 and your #2 is better than their #3.  

The same thing can happen here.  If the worst teams in the B1G-W play the best teams in the B1G-E then the rest of the B1G-W teams can all potentially play B1G-E teams that are slightly worse than they are even if the B1G-E is better top-to-bottom.  

I think in general that these things balance out over enough games but that takes at least 3-4 seasons so looking at single-season results should always be treated as nothing more than a starting point.  

I don't mean to undermine your effort, but of course it's a silly metric in such a small sample size. My similarly small sample size was intended to be used as nothing more than suggestion for one to check the fragility of their own house before casting stones at others.