CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on August 22, 2022, 08:43:54 PM
-
In the Power Rankings threads I always include a table that shows each team's opponents and whether they are played at home (H) or on the road (A). I got that chart ready for this year because I'm getting ready to start doing Power Rankings threads. For now this is sorted by SI's preseason B1G Power Rankings:
(https://i.imgur.com/gxlBg81.png)
It reads down not across so for example, in the tOSU column, the #1 Buckeyes have the #2 Wolverines at home on 11/26 and the #3 Spartans on the road on 10/8.
As a way of trying to quantify the impact of schedule I adopted a system similar to the tiers that we use for BB. I assumed that each team would win home games and lose road games against teams ranked within +/- two spots of themselves and lose to all the teams better than that and beat all the teams below that.
Example:
#7 Minnesota should win at home or lose on the road against #5 Iowa, #6 Penn State, #8 Nebraska, and #9 Purdue.
- They play Iowa and Purdue at home so I've assumed that they'll win those but they play Penn State and Nebraska on the road so I've assumed that they'll lose those. 2-2.
- They play two teams better than that (MSU, UW) and I've assumed they'll lose both of those regardless of location. 0-2.
- They play three teams worse than that (IL, RU, NU) and I've assumed they'll win all of those regardless of location. 3-0.
That adds up to a projected 5-4 for Minnesota.
Using that method, here are projected final standings:
B1G West:
- 6-3 Iowa (losses to tOSU, M, MN), wins tie with UW based on H2H.
- 6-3 Wisconsin (losses in Columbus, East Lansing, and Iowa City).
- 5-4 Minnesota (losses to MSU, UW, PSU, UNL).
- 5-4 Nebraska (losses to M, UW, IA, PU).
- 3-6 Purdue (wins over UNL, IU, NU).
- 2-7 Illinois (wins over PU, NU).
- 0-9 Northwestern
B1G East:
- 8-1 Ohio State (loss in East Lansing), wins tie with MSU and M, see below.
- 8-1 Michigan (loss in Columbus).
- 8-1 Michigan State (loss in Ann Arbor).
- 6-3 Penn State (losses to tOSU, M, MSU).
- 4-5 Maryland (wins over PU, RU, IU, NU).
- 1-8 Rutgers (win over IU)
- 1-8 Indiana (win over IL)
This particular 3-way tie is inordinately complicated. The tiebreaker steps for a three-team tie are:
- H2H2H. All three are 1-1 so we move to
- Divisional record. All three are 5-1 so we move to
- Record of each against the next highest placed teams in the division in order of finish. All three are 1-0 against each other divisional opponent so we move to
- Record against all common conference opponents. In this case that is simply the other four teams in the division and all three are 4-0 so we move to
- Cumulative conference winning percentage of non-divisional opponents. Miraculously this is also tied. tOSU played 6-3 UW, 6-3 IA, and 0-9 NU, 12-15. M played 6-3 IA, 5-4 UNL, and 1-8 IL, 12-15. MSU played 6-3 UW, 5-4 MN, and 1-8 IL, 12-15. Thus we move to
- Record against the highest placed team(s) in the other division with the specific notation that 1-0 IS better than 0-0 and 2-0 IS better than 1-0. The highest placed teams in the other division are UW and IA. M beat Iowa, MSU beat UW, and tOSU beat both UW and IA so the Buckeyes are 2-0 while the Wolverines and Spartans are each 1-0 so the Buckeyes would get to Indianapolis based on tiebreaker #6.
-
5-4 Nebraska (losses to M, UW, IA, PU).
I could handle this, so could Coach Frost
-
The tier gaps are much wider in football. I would say the higher tier wins every game. Home field just determines games within the same tier
-
My view of the schedules:
Ohio State:
Getting Michigan and three of their four toughest opponents at home is great. PSU and MSU on the road are the toughest games.
Michigan:
Traveling to Columbus sucks of course but but hosting their next three toughest divisional opponents (MSU, PSU, UMD) is nice and this schedule gives Michigan a pretty easy path to ten wins.
Michigan State:
Traveling to Ann Arbor and Happy Valley sucks and it gets a lot worse if the Spartans aren't able to beat the Buckeyes and/or the Badgers at home. In the not unlikely event that the Spartans lose all four of those they'll have to be perfect the rest of the way just to finish on the right side of. 500.
Wisconsin:
The Badgers have a very tough schedule thus year with their three toughest opponents and four of their five toughest on the road. If they lose in Iowa City and either Columbus or East Lansing they'll need a LOT of help to get to Indianapolis.
Iowa:
Getting Wisconsin at home should help Iowa in their quest to repeat as the B1G-W's representative in Indianapolis. If they beat the Badgers and go at least 3-2 in the games @tOSU, vM, @MN, @UNL, @PU they'll probably get to Indianapolis at 7-2.
Penn State:
As I've said before, I think their opener in West Lafayette on September 1 is crucial for both teams. If Penn State wins then they should also win the home game against Minnesota and the four games against lesser teams. That makes 6-3 an absolute floor with two out of the other three (tOSU, MSU) at home. A 7-2 or better finish is likely and a trip to Indianapolis isn't altogether unlikely. Conversely, if they lose in West Lafayette I could see them finishing closer to .500.
Minnesota:
The Gophers have their two toughest opponents and four of their five toughest (MSU, UW, PSU, UNL) on the road, that isn't a likely path to Indy.
Nebraska:
The trips to Ann Arbor and Madison suck but they get Iowa and Minnesota at home which helps. I think that 7-2 should be enough to win the West and that isn't implausible for the Huskers.
Purdue:
The September 1 opener is as crucial for the Boilermakers as it is for PSU. Purdue's big advantage is that they don't have to play Ohio State, Michigan, or Michigan State AND they get their toughest BIG-E opponent (PSU) at home. If they can beat PSU then 7-2 and a trip to Indy is plausible but if not . . .
Maryland:
The best news for the Terps is that they get PU and RU at home. If they win those two, win in Bloomington, and beat Northwestern at home then 4-5 is the floor and they are only one upset from finishing above .500.
Illinois:
If the Illini are a bottom feeder this schedule sucks because their two easiest opponents are on the road. However, if they are improved it could be advantageous because they'll have HFA where they need it (PU, MN, IA, MSU).
Rutgers:
They get four of their five easiest games at home which is probably an advantage for them.
Indiana:
If they can win in Piscataway then they should probably beat Illinois, Maryland, and Purdue at home. That makes four wins and they are just one upset from finishing above. 500.
Northwestern:
IMHO, this schedule is a nightmare for the Wildcats. They don't get Indiana or Rutgers at all. They only have three home games (tOSU, UW, IL) and they would probably lose two of those irrespective of location. Six of their seven easiest opponents are away from home.
-
As much as I would love to see Iowa win the West again, If they only win it with a 6-3 conference record, I would rather the Big Ten change their rules now to have the top 2 teams go to the CCG, even if that means an OSU-Mich rematch. Not because I am afraid of a blowout, I would just rather see the 2 most deserving teams make it to the CCG.
With that said, the Big Ten has never had a division winner with 3 losses, although last year we came close. So it could happen one day. And it should be noted that one year Wisc made the CCG with 4 losses, but Wisc was not technically the division winner that year.
-
This particular 3-way tie is inordinately complicated. The tiebreaker steps for a three-team tie are:
- H2H2H. All three are 1-1 so we move to
- Divisional record. All three are 5-1 so we move to
- Record of each against the next highest placed teams in the division in order of finish. All three are 1-0 against each other divisional opponent so we move to
- Record against all common conference opponents. In this case that is simply the other four teams in the division and all three are 4-0 so we move to
- Cumulative conference winning percentage of non-divisional opponents. Miraculously this is also tied. tOSU played 6-3 UW, 6-3 IA, and 0-9 NU, 12-15. M played 6-3 IA, 5-4 UNL, and 1-8 IL, 12-15. MSU played 6-3 UW, 5-4 MN, and 1-8 IL, 12-15. Thus we move to
- Record against the highest placed team(s) in the other division with the specific notation that 1-0 IS better than 0-0 and 2-0 IS better than 1-0. The highest placed teams in the other division are UW and IA. M beat Iowa, MSU beat UW, and tOSU beat both UW and IA so the Buckeyes are 2-0 while the Wolverines and Spartans are each 1-0 so the Buckeyes would get to Indianapolis based on tiebreaker #6.
Wow that is a complicated tie breaker. It's almost tempting to just play rock-paper-scissors-Lizard-Spock at that point. It would be about as fair. But I guess the argument that OSU was only team to beat the 2 best teams in west is as good as any other tiebreaker at that point.
-
As much as I would love to see Iowa win the West again, If they only win it with a 6-3 conference record, I would rather the Big Ten change their rules now to have the top 2 teams go to the CCG, even if that means an OSU-Mich rematch. Not because I am afraid of a blowout, I would just rather see the 2 most deserving teams make it to the CCG.
so, how do you select the top 2 teams? simply number of losses? AP ranking?
I like the idea of a reward for winning the division
-
so, how do you select the top 2 teams? simply number of losses? AP ranking?
I like the idea of a reward for winning the division
Well the division winner still can get a trophy. Just not an automatic spot in the CCG.
The 2 teams in the CCG would be decided the same way Medina figured out who wins each division. Overall conference records, then tiebreakers.
In Medina's hypothetical, OSU wins the first tiebreaker with its 2-0 record against Iowa, Wisc. The 2nd tiebreaker goes to Mich since it beat MSU H2H. MSU pretty much gets screwed.
-
we don't need no stinkin trophies
we want a shot at the conference championship
-
we don't need no stinkin trophies
we want a shot at the conference championship
Which I kind of hate. I loved growing up that a generally meaningless game against Minnesota was for a trophy. They also baked those into the NCAA Football video games. But again, everything that isn't the CFP is pointless
-
well, a jug or an ax or a rivalry trophy won't go away
I just don't need to substitute a trophy for a shot at a conference championship
but, sadly, conferences are much to large for logical means of crowning a champion
-
well, a jug or an ax or a rivalry trophy won't go away
I just don't need to substitute a trophy for a shot at a conference championship
but, sadly, conferences are much to large for logical means of crowning a champion
Well, and you can't fluke your way into a shared one anymore. CCGs suck
-
shared don't count, there's always a tie-breaker
Huskers shared a few Big 8 titles back in the day, but when the tie-breaker was head to head with the Sooners, everyone knew it didn't count
-
shared don't count, there's always a tie-breaker
Huskers shared a few Big 8 titles back in the day, but when the tie-breaker was head to head with the Sooners, everyone knew it didn't count
For the individual year I generally agree but for streaks I disagree.
-
how can the streak continue if the individual season wasn't legit
-
how can the streak continue if the individual season wasn't legit
If you are co-champions you don't get the reward. Ie, historically for us the champion's reward was the RoseBowl and only the winner of the tiebreaker got that. Now the divisional champion's reward is the B1GCG and only the winner of the tiebreaker gets that.
In an individual season if you lose the tiebreaker it doesn't "feel like" a championship season because you didn't get the reward (RoseBowl, B1GCG) but the co-championship isn't, as you put it, illegitimate and if you have one of those in between two full championships you have three straight championships.
-
PJ Barnum commissioned B1G West championship rings after the 2019 season.
Wisconsin pounded them before this, and played in Indy.
<<<giggles>>>
-
If you are co-champions you don't get the reward. Ie, historically for us the champion's reward was the RoseBowl and only the winner of the tiebreaker got that. Now the divisional champion's reward is the B1GCG and only the winner of the tiebreaker gets that.
In an individual season if you lose the tiebreaker it doesn't "feel like" a championship season because you didn't get the reward (RoseBowl, B1GCG) but the co-championship isn't, as you put it, illegitimate and if you have one of those in between two full championships you have three straight championships.
back in the olden daze I could see this - example 1973
thank God for tie-breakers
Bo should have gone for two after the TD
-
back in the olden daze I could see this - example 1973
thank God for tie-breakers
Bo should have gone for two after the TD
The real problem in 1973 was that neither coach nor anyone else actually knew what would happen in the event of a tie. The conference should have had a policy in place such that Bo could have made that decision knowing what it meant. If they had, then Bo would logically either have known that a tie was enough to get his team to the RoseBowl and kicked the PAT or that he needed a win to get to Pasadena and gone for two.
I strongly believe that if Bo had gone for two then either tOSU or M would have won the 1973 NC instead of Notre Dame. Heading into that game the top ranked teams were:
- 9-0 tOSU
- 9-0 Bama
- 8-0-1 Oklahoma (tied USC in SoCal)
- 10-0 Michigan
- 8-0 Notre Dame
- 10-0 Penn State
- 9-0 LSU
That week:
- tOSU tied M, dropped to #3
- Bama beat LSU, moved up to #1
- Oklahoma beat Nebraska, moved up to #2
- Michigan tied tOSU, stayed #4
- Notre Dame beat Air Force, stayed #5
- Penn State beat Pitt, stayed #6
The next week:
- 10-0 Bama beat Auburn, stayed #1 at 11-0
- 9-0-1 Oklahoma beat OkSU, stayed #2 at 10-0-1
- 9-0-1 tOSU was idle, dropped to #4
- 10-0-1 M was idle, dropped to #5
- 9-0 Notre Dame beat Miami, FL and leapfrogged M and tOSU to #3 at 10-0
- 11-0 Penn State was idle, stayed #6 at 11-0
Those were all of the relevant contenders heading into the Bowls because #7 was 9-1-1 USC which had tied #2 Oklahoma in SoCal and lost closely to #3 Notre Dame in South Bend.
In the Bowls:
- 11-0 Bama lost 24-23 to #3 Notre Dame in the Sugar Bowl.
- 9-0-1 Oklahoma must have been on probation because they didn't Bowl.
- 10-0 Notre Dame beat #1 Bama 24-23 in the Sugar Bowl.
- 9-0-1 tOSU beat #7 USC 42-21 in the Rose Bowl.
- 10-0-1 Michigan didn't bowl due to the Big Ten's Rose Bowl or bust rule.
- 11-0 Penn State beat #13 LSU 16-9 in the Orange Bowl.
Thus the final rankings were:
- 11-0 Notre Dame
- 10-0-1 Ohio State (tied #6 Michigan in Ann Arbor)
- 10-0-1 Oklahoma (tied #8 USC in SoCal)
- 11-1 Bama, lost to #2 Notre Dame in Sugar Bowl
- 12-0 Penn State
- 10-0-1 Michigan (tied #2 tOSU at home)
A hypothetical 11-0 tOSU or 12-0 Michigan with a win over the other one and the RoseBowl win over USC (historic for tOSU, assumed for Michigan) would likely have won the NC over Notre Dame whom both of them were ranked above before their tie.
Side note:
USC's schedule that year was nuts! They finished 9-2-1 but the three blemishes were:
- A 9 point road loss to NC Notre Dame
- A 21 point Bowl loss to #2 tOSU
- A tie at home with #3 Oklahoma.
They also beat final #12 UCLA .