CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on August 12, 2025, 12:38:35 PM
-
Over in @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) 's simulation thread (https://www.cfb51.com/big-ten/2025-spfpi-season-simulation/98/) it has become plausible that there will be a three-way tie for third place. Given that there are only two slots available in the CG one team would obviously be left out. As it stands now the determinative factor would end up being the cumulative winning percentage of conference opponents (ie, SoS) and the team that HAS a H2H win among the tied teams would likely be left out while the team that they beat would play the team that didn't play either of the others in the CG.
Here are the [72].pdf"]current tiebreakers (http://"chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://assets.contentstack.io/v3/assets/bltca750cef518bc6e4/blt2bf0c27b5714240c/66cc95d319b683cdf2088edf/2024_Big_Ten_Football_Tiebreaker_-_FINAL[10) for a multi-team tie. If you don't want to read all of that here is a shorthand version:
- H2H but only if they all played or if one defeated each of the others.
- Record against common conference opponents.
- Record against the best common opponent, then the next, etc.
- SoS: Cumulative conference record of conference opponents.
- SportSource Analytics Ranking.
- Random draw.
-
College Football Playoff Rankings
-
I voted something like current. In fact, I don't see anything worth changing in the first four tiebreakers.
I do think H2H should be the first tiebreaker (as it currently is). A team should not go to the CCG over a team it lost to unless H2H doesn't produce a CLEAR outcome. But it's true that if the teams did not all play, or if they (assuming three) played and each team went 1-1 against the other two so there wasn't a clear outcome, or there wasn't one team that defeated all of the others, that you need something else. This is directly comparable outcomes against each other... Unless it doesn't yield a clear and direct "winner" of the tiebreaker.
After that, record against common opponents, then against best common opponent, makes sense. Again, you're comparing performances that are directly comparable because it's teams that each tied team played in common.
Only after that do you get IMHO to SoS. Because you've run out of directly comparable events, and now you're looking at more nebulous things like "who has the best resume?"
I prefer "who has the best resume?" to "who is the best team?", which might come from point 5, or poll ranking, or some other analytic like FPI. Because again, it's rating you based on how strong your competition was. But I at least prefer "who is the best team?" to a random draw.
So... I don't see any reason to change the existing system...
-
College Football Playoff Rankings
How do you fix a tie for 9th using those rankings?
-
Instead of random draw, just employ the old Rose Bowl rule at that point. The team with the longest ccg draught.
-
How do you fix a tie for 9th using those rankings?
it's of little important at that point - no one cares
-
If it's for the last spot in a bowl game, it matters.
-
let the bowl game decide
butts in seats
-
I voted something like current. In fact, I don't see anything worth changing in the first four tiebreakers.
I do think H2H should be the first tiebreaker (as it currently is). A team should not go to the CCG over a team it lost to unless H2H doesn't produce a CLEAR outcome. But it's true that if the teams did not all play, or if they (assuming three) played and each team went 1-1 against the other two so there wasn't a clear outcome, or there wasn't one team that defeated all of the others, that you need something else. This is directly comparable outcomes against each other... Unless it doesn't yield a clear and direct "winner" of the tiebreaker.
After that, record against common opponents, then against best common opponent, makes sense. Again, you're comparing performances that are directly comparable because it's teams that each tied team played in common.
Only after that do you get IMHO to SoS. Because you've run out of directly comparable events, and now you're looking at more nebulous things like "who has the best resume?"
I prefer "who has the best resume?" to "who is the best team?", which might come from point 5, or poll ranking, or some other analytic like FPI. Because again, it's rating you based on how strong your competition was. But I at least prefer "who is the best team?" to a random draw.
So... I don't see any reason to change the existing system...
I generally agree but, and this is mostly devil's advocate, where I don't like SoS is when the difference is insignificant. For example:
In @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) 's scenario the plausible three-way tie is at 8-1 between Oregon (lost at PSU), Michigan (lost at UNL), and Ohio State (lost at Michigan). The only opponents that all three have in common are the two UW's, Wisconsin and Washington. Running the tiebreakers:
- H2H2H: Does not apply because they didn't all play and no team defeated each of the others.
- Record against common conference opponents: All three are 2-0 with wins over the Badgers and Huskies.
- Record against the best common opponent, then the next. They are each 1-0 against both common opponents so this does not help.
- Cumulative conference winning percentage of all conference opponents: At this point in the scenario Ohio State leads because their opponents are 26-30 vs 25-31 for Oregon's opponents and 22-34 for Michigan's opponents.
I'm fine with that for breaking a tie between Ohio State and Michigan because the gap is 4 games. It isn't huge but it is significant. Ohio State played four teams that have two or less losses (MN, M, IL, PSU) and went 3-1 while Michigan only played three (tOSU, UNL, USC) and went 2-1. Ohio State played more teams that would have a plausible chance against a league title contender.
If we were breaking a tie between Ohio State and Oregon where the difference is only one game, this seems unfair. The SoS difference between tOSU and Ore is that tOSU played 1-6 Purdue while Oregon played 0-6 Northwestern. That isn't significant. Either the Ducks or the Bucks should easily beat either the Boilermakers or the Wildcats so penalizing the Ducks because the Wildcats are marginally worse seems silly.
My problem is that the above is very subjective and it would be difficult for me to write it into an objective rule.
-
Instead of random draw, just employ the old Rose Bowl rule at that point. The team with the longest ccg draught.
I hated what I used to call the "Longest Loser Rule" mostly because it always seemed to work out to Ohio State's detriment. Some of that is to be expected. The Buckeyes have been the best team in the league overall since Paul Brown was coaching in Columbus so, of course they are usually not going to be the "longest loser" but even when you would think they would be, they still weren't.
The BigTen/PacTen agreement with the Rose Bowl started for the 1947 Rose Bowl (1946 season) and from then until the BCS era when the Rose Bowl was no longer the highest possible goal, Ohio State's longest droughts were:
- 11: 1986-1996
- 10: 1959-1968
- 4: 1951-1954
- 4: 1981-1984
- 3: 1947-1949
- 3: 1977-1979
- 2: 1956-1957
- 1: 1970
- 1: 1972
- 1: 1998
That longest drought of 11 seasons was for the 1985-1995 seasons which included 1993. Heading into the 1993 season Ohio State hadn't been to the Rose Bowl in nearly a decade and the following teams had all been more recently than Ohio State:
- Michigan, went in 1992
- Iowa, went in 1991
- Michigan State, went in 1988
- Iowa, went in 1986
So the Buckeyes would have won a "Longest Loser Rule" tie with any of those teams but the Buckeyes tied with Wisconsin. The Buckeyes and Badgers tied each other, each lost on the road to their biggest rival despite being obviously better and they each finished 6-1-1. H2H was no help since they tied each other so it was decided based on the "Longest Loser Rule" and Wisconsin won because they hadn't been to the Rose Bowl since the Kennedy Administration.
-
I generally agree but, and this is mostly devil's advocate, where I don't like SoS is when the difference is insignificant. For example:
In @ELA (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=55) 's scenario the plausible three-way tie is at 8-1 between Oregon (lost at PSU), Michigan (lost at UNL), and Ohio State (lost at Michigan). The only opponents that all three have in common are the two UW's, Wisconsin and Washington. Running the tiebreakers:
- H2H2H: Does not apply because they didn't all play and no team defeated each of the others.
- Record against common conference opponents: All three are 2-0 with wins over the Badgers and Huskies.
- Record against the best common opponent, then the next. They are each 1-0 against both common opponents so this does not help.
- Cumulative conference winning percentage of all conference opponents: At this point in the scenario Ohio State leads because their opponents are 26-30 vs 25-31 for Oregon's opponents and 22-34 for Michigan's opponents.
I'm fine with that for breaking a tie between Ohio State and Michigan because the gap is 4 games. It isn't huge but it is significant. Ohio State played four teams that have two or less losses (MN, M, IL, PSU) and went 3-1 while Michigan only played three (tOSU, UNL, USC) and went 2-1. Ohio State played more teams that would have a plausible chance against a league title contender.
If we were breaking a tie between Ohio State and Oregon where the difference is only one game, this seems unfair. The SoS difference between tOSU and Ore is that tOSU played 1-6 Purdue while Oregon played 0-6 Northwestern. That isn't significant. Either the Ducks or the Bucks should easily beat either the Boilermakers or the Wildcats so penalizing the Ducks because the Wildcats are marginally worse seems silly.
My problem is that the above is very subjective and it would be difficult for me to write it into an objective rule.
The thing is, you're going to have narrow gaps sometimes.
I still prefer SoS, even if the gaps are narrow, to subjective analysis like human poll rankings, or to objective but potentially inaccurate things like an analytic.
Also note that as I understand the tiebreakers, you get to #4, you see that Ohio State has the best SoS, and now they've "won" the tiebreaker. But you then go back and re-run it with Oregon and Michigan, excluding Ohio State.
In this case, it doesn't help, because Oregon and Michigan didn't play H2H, and the two teams that Oregon and Michigan lost to (PSU & UNL, respectively), are not common opponents. But in many cases, it actually would help and thus Oregon vs Michigan wouldn't come down to SoS.
But now you return to SoS and Oregon goes to the CCG because they've got a 3 game advantage in SoS, not a 1 game advantage. So Oregon isn't being materially harmed here.
I mean, maybe it would suck if Oregon's opponents were 23-33 and Michigan's 22-34... But them's the breaks. There's a reason it's the 4th tiebreaker, not the 1st.
-
Also note that as I understand the tiebreakers, you get to #4, you see that Ohio State has the best SoS, and now they've "won" the tiebreaker. But you then go back and re-run it with Oregon and Michigan, excluding Ohio State.
I think that you are right but I'm not sure, within the tiebreaker for three or more teams it states:
"...if a tiebreaker step produces standings with a clear No. 1 team by itself among the tied teams, that team is selected for the championship game and the remaining teams still in contention revert to the beginning of the applicable tiebreaker procedures (e.g., if there are three teams, the No. 1 team is in the championship game and the other two teams go to the first step of the two-team tiebreaker procedures..."
So lets say the season finished with the current SoS in the simulation. Ohio State wins and is in the CG. Oregon finishes second based on SoS so are they the other CG team or do we revert to the two-team tiebreaker between Oregon and Michigan. If we go to the two-team tiebreaker:
- H2H, n/a because they didn't play.
- Record against common. Both are perfect against USC, UDub, UW, and NU.
- Record against best common, then next, etc. Both are perfect against all four.
- SoS so that gets us back to where we were and Oregon wins.
In this case it doesn't matter but it *COULD* matter and will matter in other situations. Realistically with 18 teams there are going to be ties almost every year. Last year it was a 2-way tie for second place between PSU and IU. Both lost to tOSU and beat all the other teams that they played so it came down to SoS and PSU won.
-
How do you fix a tie for 9th using those rankings?
😂😂
-
USC & Rutgers tied for 9th last season
(https://i.imgur.com/6qVRdUZ.png)
-
Here's an idea: whichever team has the most recent win vs an original SEC team.
-
Here's an idea: whichever team has the most recent win vs an original SEC team.
Michigan (19-13 over Bama on December31, 2024) edges out Ohio State (42-17 over Tennessee on December 21, 2024) by 10 days.