header pic

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

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down
Author

Topic: B1G tiebreakers

 (Read 9446 times)

rolltidefan

  • Global Moderator
  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 2219
  • Liked:
Re: B1G tiebreakers
« Reply #14 on: August 14, 2018, 01:40:00 PM »
question on #6, is that not common opponents?

sec has similar rule, but it's for common opponents faced.
Logged

Anonymous Coward

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • Liked:
Re: B1G tiebreakers
« Reply #15 on: August 14, 2018, 01:49:31 PM »
Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on August 14, 2018, 01:11:07 PM
I get where you are coming from and in some cases I certainly agree, but in others I do not and it would be nearly impossible to devise an objective rule that could differentiate between the two cases.  
A hypothetical example in which I would agree with you:
Suppose that Wisconsin ends up being just a steamroller and destroying everyone in their path this year.  In the B1G-E that would be bad for PSU and M who play Wisconsin and good for MSU and tOSU who do not.  (Note, I'm assuming here that those four are the only contenders for the B1G-E and that IU, UMD, and RU will be also-rans).  
In that case I would agree with you because it is "unfair" for the Nittany Lions and Wolverines to be penalized for playing a tougher schedule than the Buckeyes and Spartans.  
A hypothetical example in which I would disagree with you:
Suppose that the Wolverines, Buckeyes, and Nittany Lions go 1-1 against each other and 6-1 against their other conference foes with each of the three losing in a shocking upset, Michigan to Rutgers, Penn State to Indiana, and Ohio State to Minnesota.  
In that case I would disagree with you because I don't think that the Buckeyes should be rewarded for losing to a crappy team from the other division rather than losing to a crappy team from the same division.  Note, however, that the Buckeyes would win this tie in the current structure anyway because it would go to tiebreaker #2, divisional record in which Ohio State would be 5-1 while Penn State and Michigan were each 4-2.  
Where I would STRONGLY disagree with you:
I think we are moving toward and will eventually arrive at a playoff system in which the P5 Champions get auto-bids.  One thing that I would NOT like about that is that it would render OOC games nothing more than exhibitions.  If we further made cross-divisional games into non-factors in the divisional race then those games would also, effectively, be exhibitions.  In that situation Ohio State could literally lose to Oregon State, TCU, Tulane, Minnesota, Purdue, and Nebraska (six games) and still control their own destiny for the National Championship because winning the other six would get them to the B1GCG and winning that would get them to the (enlarged) CFP.  
I'm not sure I agree (in the "might disagree" option, OSU lost to Minnesota and went ***undefeated*** within the division. Yes, IMO, they deserve the division crown even if they lost EVERY other interdivisional game).
Then, even if I fully did agree, a lot of the trouble spots you cite can be eliminated by only addressing division record first if there are two or fewer teams at the top.
Your counter examples include three-team ties.
What is an example of a scenario where a team that is (1) alone at the top of the division record or (2) tied with precisely one team at the top of the division record isn't the team most deserving of that division's CCG bid?
So this proposal would have two tiers:
A. Address division record. If two or fewer teams are at the top, proceed to name the champ (if only one) or execute the H2H tiebreaker. If three or more teams are tied at the top, proceed to option B.
B. Move to Conference record. If ties remain: Execute the circa 2017 tiebreaker list.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 02:12:04 PM by Anonymous Coward »
Logged

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 20280
  • Liked:
Re: B1G tiebreakers
« Reply #16 on: August 14, 2018, 02:37:34 PM »
Quote from: 847badgerfan on August 14, 2018, 12:52:37 PM
It used to be that. Now they have the playoff ranking and CCG, no?
Anyway, the Big11 had BCS rank as a tiebreaker until UNL showed up.
It was the longest Rose Bowl drought for a long time.  I actually think Wisconsin going over MSU in 2010 is one of the first cases of that no longer being the rule.
Logged

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 20280
  • Liked:
Re: B1G tiebreakers
« Reply #17 on: August 14, 2018, 02:38:49 PM »
Quote from: FearlessF on August 14, 2018, 11:30:24 AM
happened in the Big 12

They randomly picked the team they felt gave the conference the best representative to make money

it stung
ADs voted 6-4 in 1974 to send OSU to the Rose Bowl over Michigan, because UMs QB was injured.
Logged

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25044
  • Liked:
Re: B1G tiebreakers
« Reply #18 on: August 14, 2018, 02:57:18 PM »
Quote from: ELA on August 14, 2018, 02:37:34 PM
It was the longest Rose Bowl drought for a long time.  I actually think Wisconsin going over MSU in 2010 is one of the first cases of that no longer being the rule.
Yes, it was, and UW also benefitted from that 2 times in a 5 year stretch.
Logged
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37390
  • Liked:
Re: B1G tiebreakers
« Reply #19 on: August 14, 2018, 03:16:17 PM »
Quote from: ELA on August 14, 2018, 02:38:49 PM
ADs voted 6-4 in 1974 to send OSU to the Rose Bowl over Michigan, because UMs QB was injured.
Bo didn't see it that way, or didn't much care for the reasoning
Logged
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 20280
  • Liked:
Re: B1G tiebreakers
« Reply #20 on: August 14, 2018, 03:47:42 PM »
Quote from: FearlessF on August 14, 2018, 03:16:17 PM
Bo didn't see it that way, or didn't much care for the reasoning
That was the PC answer.  I'm sure all of the politics were more convoluted than that.  Probably shouldn't have worked so hard to keep MSU out.  They have have voted for them.
OSU did lead the Big Ten in both scoring offense and scoring defense that year.  Scoring offense by over a touchdown per game too.  Michigan was 2nd in both, lagged quite a bit in offense, but the defense was right there.  OSU was at like 5.8 ppg, and UM was like 6.3, because 70s Big Ten football.
Considering that during the "TEN YEAR WAR," during which the conference was trash, from 1970-1980 the Big Ten went 1-10 in Rose Bowls (UM 0-5, OSU 1-5), and this was the Big Ten's lone win, a blowout win over USC, I guess it worked out ok,
Logged

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37390
  • Liked:
Re: B1G tiebreakers
« Reply #21 on: August 14, 2018, 03:51:48 PM »
NEVER gonna convince BO
Logged
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Riffraft

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1094
  • Liked:
Re: B1G tiebreakers
« Reply #22 on: August 14, 2018, 03:58:14 PM »
Quote from: 847badgerfan on August 14, 2018, 02:57:18 PM
Yes, it was, and UW also benefitted from that 2 times in a 5 year stretch.
Now now let's not give opinions on the actual facts. We all know it was because Ohio state bribed all the other ADs. :)BTW it was 1973 not 1974 <tongue firmly planted in cheek>
Logged

medinabuckeye1

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 8906
  • Liked:
Re: B1G tiebreakers
« Reply #23 on: August 14, 2018, 04:13:17 PM »
Quote from: rolltidefan on August 14, 2018, 01:40:00 PM
question on #6, is that not common opponents?

sec has similar rule, but it's for common opponents faced.
It specifically is not. Common opponents are covered elsewhere and, if you click the link, it specifically states that this applies even if the number of games is unequal then gives an examples including that 1-0 is better than 0-0 and that 0-0 is better than 0-1.
Logged

medinabuckeye1

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 8906
  • Liked:
Re: B1G tiebreakers
« Reply #24 on: August 14, 2018, 04:27:00 PM »
Quote from: ELA on August 14, 2018, 03:47:42 PM
Considering that during the "TEN YEAR WAR," during which the conference was trash, from 1970-1980 the Big Ten went 1-10 in Rose Bowls (UM 0-5, OSU 1-5), and this was the Big Ten's lone win, a blowout win over USC, I guess it worked out ok,
I've never really understood Bo's and most Michigan fans' unceasing complaints about that. Ohio State was the better team by any objective measure you could use to break the tie.
That said, I think Michigan would have won the Rose Bowl that year also. As I've said before, I think both teams were good enough to win the NC in 1973 and they were both just unlucky that their main rival happened to be good enough to tie them.
Logged

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37390
  • Liked:
Re: B1G tiebreakers
« Reply #25 on: August 14, 2018, 05:57:58 PM »
the program I watched, Bo seemed to think other ADs voted not for Woody and Ohio State, but against him and Michigan because of some hard feelings
Logged
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11228
  • Liked:
Re: B1G tiebreakers
« Reply #26 on: August 14, 2018, 09:42:52 PM »
Quote from: Anonymous Coward on August 14, 2018, 12:54:42 PM
It could be pointed out that making division record paramount will diminish the significance of the regular season (interdivisional games would matter less). But the effect is small and in the CCG and CFP era, that ship ("diminished regular season") has already sailed.
It could also be argued that giving the bid to the best division record will, in some years, send a team with a lesser chance at the CFP to the CCG, but to me that's akin to saying we care less about naming a true champion than the sexiest team of 201X.
Interesting thinking, but it would almost defeat the purpose of even scheduling the crossover match ups. 
It would essentially be two conferences, with a scheduling alliance. 
Logged
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37390
  • Liked:
Re: B1G tiebreakers
« Reply #27 on: August 15, 2018, 09:21:12 AM »
Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on August 14, 2018, 09:42:52 PM

It would essentially be two conferences, with a scheduling alliance.
great idea
Logged
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
« previous next »
 
Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.
Dock Signs-WeatherPROOF

WeatherPROOF Sign Single Sided