Author
Topic: B1G tiebreakers
(Read 9502 times)

rolltidefan · « **Reply #56 on:** August 16, 2018, 12:00:23 PM »

Quote from: ohio1317 on August 15, 2018, 09:11:58 PM

Like the fact they took the CFP ranking out of it. While I get that to a degree (if one team has clearly been better even if records basically the same, this is a way to give a small nudge), I hate using national ranking systems for conference ranking purposes.
One thing I think should be added would be to go back to an old rule for the final tie-breaker instead of random draw. Team who has not been to the Rose Bowl in the longest time wins the tie breaker. That was a conference tie breaker until sometime in the last decade (even if way down the list), and for history sake, it's a good one that will never be used (and if it is, is no less far than random draw).

that would be a great idea. homage to the past, but with no rel consequences.

ELA · « **Reply #57 on:** August 16, 2018, 12:11:09 PM »

I think the issue is it's far less clean than it used to be.

Up until 2011 you were competing for a single auto-bid. That was still typically the Rose Bowl. Now you are using the tiebreaker to determine going to Indianapolis, not to the bowl game. Second, what constitutes "going to the Rose Bowl?" Is it actually playing in the Rose Bowl? Is it going as the Big Ten champ? Playing in the Rose Bowl isn't as clean as it once was. For example, look at 2015. Michigan State won the Big Ten, but went to the Cotton Bowl as part of the CFP. Iowa got the Rose Bowl as a consolation prize. So in some sort of tiebreaker where that is used, what counts? For tiebreaker purposes is MSU 2013, being the last time they played in the Rose Bowl, or is it 2015, the last time they won the conference, even though they didn't actually play in the Rose Bowl? Or 2016, where OSU didn't even go to Indy, but made the CFP, Penn State won the conference, played in the Rose Bowl, but didn't make the CFP. If we got to that tiebreaker somehow, it starts getting kind of unwieldy now. Plus longest Rose Bowl drought, when determining going to the Rose Bowl, makes sense. Longest Rose Bowl drought, to determine going to Indy, does not.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #58 on:** August 16, 2018, 12:12:00 PM »

Only issue is that the Rose is no longer the default bowl for the B1G Champion... Now I know that rule probably came from the old days when the B1G wouldn't send the same team to the Rose 2 years in a row as well, but once that was lifted it basically became "longest conference championship drought".

I'd maybe go back to that. The team with the longest conference championship drought becomes the CCG participant.

ELA · « **Reply #59 on:** August 16, 2018, 12:12:50 PM »

Quote from: bwarbiany on August 16, 2018, 12:12:00 PM

Only issue is that the Rose is no longer the default bowl for the B1G Champion... Now I know that rule probably came from the old days when the B1G wouldn't send the same team to the Rose 2 years in a row as well, but once that was lifted it basically became "longest conference championship drought".

I'd maybe go back to that. The team with the longest conference championship drought becomes the CCG participant.

He said what I said, way more concisely.

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.

Topic: B1G tiebreakers

rolltidefan

Re: B1G tiebreakers

ELA

Re: B1G tiebreakers

betarhoalphadelta

Re: B1G tiebreakers

ELA

Re: B1G tiebreakers