CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on October 27, 2020, 05:09:02 PM
-
I'm not sure when exactly this was released, but the conference addressed the problem of not having a tiebreaker in place in the event of a tie between two teams in the same division that did NOT play due to a cancelled game.
Here is the link (https://bigten.org/documents/2020/10/22/2020_Big_Ten_Football_Tiebreakers.pdf).
Here is the summary:
- A team must play at least six games to be considered for the CG unless the average number of games played by all teams is below six (actually 5.5 because they round) in which case the eligibility threshold is that you have to have played no less than two fewer games than the average played by all teams.
- Winning percentage if all conference games are played, but if not and if two teams are tied in the loss column the H2H result between them takes precedence over winning percentage. As I understand this, if Michigan goes 6-1 with a cancelled game and beats Ohio State while Ohio State goes 7-1 with no cancellations, Michigan would get the CG bid despite having a lower winning percentage than Ohio State.
Tiebreaker for 2-team tie:
- H2H
- Divisional record but note that if two teams have the same number of losses but a different number of wins this one is skipped. Note, however, that this is NOT skipped if they have the same number of wins but a different number of losses.
- Record against the next highest placed team in the division, then the next, then the next, etc. Note here that 0-0 is the same as 1-0 or 0-1. Ie, this step is only decisive if one team beat a team that the other team lost to.
- Winning percentage against all common conference opponents (ie, if you had a common non-divisional opponent(s).
- Cumulative winning percentage of non-divisional opponents (including whichever non-divisional opponents you actually played and not including cancelled games)
- Record against the best team in the other division, then the next, then the next, etc. In this case 1-0 is better than 0-0 and (I think) 0-0 is better than 0-1.
- Best overall record (inoperative this year since there are no OOC games.
- random draw
Three team tiebreaker (Note that at each step, if only two teams remain, those two revert to the two-team tiebreaker above):
- H2H...2H. In the event of an unbalanced schedule in which some of the tied teams did not play each other, this step gets skipped
- Divisional record but the same stipulations as with the two-team tiebreaker above.
- Record against the next best team(s) in the division, then the next, etc. Same stipulation as above.
- Winning percentage against all common conference opponents. This is EXTREMELY unlikely to be decisive since it would require two teams to have a common non-divisional opponent that one beat and the other lost to.
- Cumulative winning percentage of non-divisional opponents. This step is skipped if one or more of the tied teams did not play any non-divisional opponents.
- Record against the best team in the other division, then the next, etc. Same stipulation as above.
- Best overall record (inoperable this year).
- Random Draw
If the B1GCG is unable to be played then the two divisional champions shall be declared co-champions and the following procedure used to determine the B1G representative to the CFP games:
- Teams ranked #1, #2, #3, or #4 are automatically placed in the CFP.
- If the two division champions met previously and neither is ranked 1-4 the the team ranked highest in the fifnal CFP Poll (Note, NOT the H2H winner) shall be the representative UNLESS the other team is ranked within five spots. If they are within five spots then the H2H winner goes.
- If they did NOT meet previously the the higher ranked team in the final CFP Poll goes.
- If the two teams are tied in the CFP Poll (I don't think that is possible but this is 2020 so who knows) then we go to best B1G winning percentage.
- Winning percentage against all common conference opponents.
- Overall winning percentage (inoperable since there are no OOC games).
- Longest Loser Rule: The team furthest removed from CFP, BCS, or Rose Bowl participation goes.
- Random draw.
I can't believe they revived the Longest Looser Rule, but they did. I assume here that they are referring to auto-bids not at-large bids so I assume that the order of precedence would be:
- Minnesota, 1960
- Indiana, 1967
- Iowa, 1990
- Northwestern, 1995
- Purdue, 2000
- Illinois, 2001
- Michigan, 2004
- Wisconsin, 2012
- Michigan State, 2015
- Penn State, 2016
- Ohio State, 2019
The thing is that I have no idea what to do with Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers. None of them have won the league since joining but the rule states "CFP, BCS, or Rose Bowl Game participation (as appropriate)." Maybe my above assumption that only auto-bids count was wrong? Also, since it says "participation" rather than "B1G auto-bid" maybe Nebraska's prior BCS participation counts?
-
I would interpret the longest loser rule as any participation by a current Big Ten team in any CFP affiliated bowl, any BCS bowl, or any bowl considered equivalent to the Rose Bowl.
So for example, Iowa's trip to the Rose Bowl after the 2015 season would count as its last trip to a major bowl. Even though Iowa was the conference "runner-up" that season.
-
I would interpret the longest loser rule as any participation by a current Big Ten team in any CFP affiliated bowl, any BCS bowl, or any bowl considered equivalent to the Rose Bowl.
So for example, Iowa's trip to the Rose Bowl after the 2015 season would count as its last trip to a major bowl. Even though Iowa was the conference "runner-up" that season.
I am rereading it and I think you are right. The old "Longest Loser Rule" was based on the auto-bid to a BCS Bowl and before that based on being the league representative in the Rose Bowl. That would change the order of precedence somewhat to (I believe), this:
- never, Rutgers
- 1960, Minnesota
- 1967, Indiana
- 1995, Northwestern
- 2000, Purdue
- 2001 tie, Nebraska (BCSNCG) and Maryland (BCS Bowl participation)
- 2007, Illinois (went to BCS Rose Bowl as tOSU's replacement when tOSU went to BCSNCG)
- 2015 tie: MSU (CFP) and Iowa (CFP Bowl participation)
- 2016 tie, Michigan (CFP Bowl participation) and PSU (CFP Bowl participation)
- 2019 tie: tOSU (CFP) and Wisconsin (CFP Bowl participation)
-
I am rereading it and I think you are right. The old "Longest Loser Rule" was based on the auto-bid to a BCS Bowl and before that based on being the league representative in the Rose Bowl. That would change the order of precedence somewhat to (I believe), this:
- never, Rutgers
- 1960, Minnesota
- 1967, Indiana
- 1995, Northwestern
- 2000, Purdue
- 2001 tie, Nebraska (BCSNCG) and Maryland (BCS Bowl participation)
- 2007, Illinois (went to BCS Rose Bowl as tOSU's replacement when tOSU went to BCSNCG)
- 2015 tie: MSU (CFP) and Iowa (CFP Bowl participation)
- 2016 tie, Michigan (CFP Bowl participation) and PSU (CFP Bowl participation)
- 2019 tie: tOSU (CFP) and Wisconsin (CFP Bowl participation)
Nice list. Although I believe PSU went to the Fiesta Bowl after the 2017 season.
-
So how many possible scenarios exist, now that we have this new provision?
-
I'll worry about this in 8 weeks, if ever
-
So how many possible scenarios exist, now that we have this new provision?
Too many to contemplate for now.
-
How does most turnovers factor in?
-
How does most turnovers factor in?
Teams in contention for that probably are not going to be in contention for the #1 slot.
However, since we are planning to pay B1G-E #1-7 vs B1G-W #1-7 those teams might be in a tie for a lower spot.
-
Note that with Wisconsin missing a game these odd tiebreakers just got a LOT more likely to be necessary.
This is a MAJOR departure from past practice. From 1981-1984 the conference played a full round-robin with nine games but Ohio State and Iowa were excluded in the first two years, 1981 and 1982. That probably cost the Buckeyes two Rose Bowl appearances:
- In 1981 Ohio State and Iowa finished tied for the league title at 6-2. Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin were tied for third one half game back at 6-3. Iowa got the Rose Bowl bid based on the old "longest loser rule" because they hadn't been since the 1958 season while Ohio State had been after the 1979 season two years earlier.
- In 1982 Michigan finished with the best winning percentage in the league at 8-1, one half game ahead of 7-1 Ohio State. The Buckeyes lost 6-0 to Wisconsin early in the season and beat Michigan 24-14. Michigan was the league champion and went to the Rose Bowl because they had the best winning percentage.
Based on the tiebreaker listed above for an event in which the B1GCG is unable to be played:
1981:
- CFP top-4 ranking: That didn't exist then but neither Iowa (#13 in the AP) nor Ohio State (#15 in the AP) would have made it.
- H2H. N/a, didn't play.
- Higher ranked in final CFP Poll: Iowa would likely have won based on this.
1982:
- CFP top-4 ranking: That didn't exist then but neither Ohio State (#17 in the AP) nor Michigan (#20 in the AP) would have made it.
- H2H. Ohio State would have won based on this.
-
Big West
badgers play 5 games, finish 3-2
huskers play 7 games, finish 5-2
Hawkeyes play all 8 games, finish 6-2
West division to the Hawks??? regardless of head to head
-
Big West
badgers play 5 games, finish 3-2
huskers play 7 games, finish 5-2
Hawkeyes play all 8 games, finish 6-2
West division to the Hawks??? regardless of head to head
I don't think so.
The first step would be to eliminate the Badgers. Per the rules that I posted above a team has to play six games to be considered unless the average played by all teams is below six. Assuming that the average number of games played by B1G teams is at least six, the Badgers would be ineligible for only having played five games.
That gets us to a two-team discussion between the Huskers and Hawkeyes. In the past the Hawkeyes would simply win on the basis of having a higher winning percentage:
- Hawkeyes 6-2 = .750
- Huskers 5-2 = .714
The next step states that if two teams have the same number of losses and a different number of wins, the H2H winner between them shall prevail. Thus the deciding factor between the 5-2 Huskers (didn't play UW) and the 6-2 Hawkeyes (played all games) would be the result of the H2H game between the Huskers and Hawkeyes.
-
good to know, thanks
unfortunate for the Badgers
no wonder King Barry isn't happy
should have kept his program in a better bubble