CFB51 College Football Fan Community

The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on October 16, 2017, 04:22:48 PM

Title: B1G-E race
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on October 16, 2017, 04:22:48 PM
This is certainly a lot more entertaining than the non-race in the B1G-W.  Standings:
I believe that the Hoosiers are the next best team after the top-4 but their schedule has been brutal so far so they are already effectively eliminated.  

Maryland and Rutgers each have two losses so they are in it mathematically but as a practical matter they already have a tie-breaker loss to and neither was competitive with Ohio State so they are effectively out.  

As I see it, the PSU/M game this weekend is effectively an elimination game for the Wolverines.  Meanwhile, if Penn State wins it sets up a huge 4-0 v 4-0 game in Columbus next weekend.  

The Spartans should be favored in their next two games and if they win them both it sets up humongous games the first two Saturdays in November vs PSU and at Ohio State.  

The two-team tiebreaker is, of course, H2H.  In case it matters, here is the multiple team tiebreaker from the B1G website (http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/archive/081011aaa.html) (note that if only two teams remain after any step, the winner of the game between those two goes to Indy):

I would posit that the most likely three-way tie would be a 8-1 tie where the three teams beat each other.  In that situation tiebreakers #1, #2, #3, #4, and #6 will not help leaving us with #5 and #7.  

Note that this has changed since last year.  The B1G-W opponents of the potentially relevant teams (and their current records) are:
Ohio State: (3-7)
Penn State: (4-6)
Michigan State: (2-7)
Michigan: (4-5)

As of right now the winners of a multi-team tie decided by records of B1G-W opponents would therefore be:
Title: Re: B1G-E race
Post by: Temp430 on October 17, 2017, 08:19:11 AM
To win the B1G-E outright Michigan needs to win out and Sparty has to loose two Big Ten games. Hard to see that happening given the remaining teams on the schedule. 

Sparty still has to play Indiana, @Northwestern, Penn State, @Ohio State, Maryland, and Rutgers so there's likely a loss or two in there.  Penn State has Michigan, @Ohio State, @Michigan State the next three weeks.  If they get through that with just one loss they may win the B1G-E. 
Title: Re: B1G-E race
Post by: ELA on October 17, 2017, 09:07:10 AM
If MSU can get through the remainder with less than 2 more losses, MD should win coach of the year in a landslide.  I'd be ecstatic to get to 9-3, and pretty damn happy with 8-4.
Title: Re: B1G-E race
Post by: TresselownsUM on October 17, 2017, 01:03:08 PM
if Michigan St can play their next 6 games in a monsoon, book it, they are going to indy
Title: Re: B1G-E race
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on October 17, 2017, 02:36:38 PM
What does everyone think of cumulative winning percentage of opposite-division opponents as a tiebreaker?  

From my perspective as a tOSU fan:
I'm somewhat ambivalent.  It makes sense if one of the three tied teams played a substantially more difficult cross-over schedule but I'm still going to be ticked if Ohio State loses on this some year by a slim margin.  Ie, if you end up tied for first in the B1G-E at 8-1 it really doesn't make much difference whether you played a 3-6 or a 2-7 B1G-W team.  
Title: Re: B1G-E race
Post by: TresselownsUM on October 17, 2017, 02:53:10 PM
my guess is they went with the cross over schedules vs what some conferences did in the past which was use the formerly BCS rankings. You could use the bowl playoff committee, AP rankings etc, but in my opinion that's going to be weighted toward helmet schools.

I really don't like using OOC schedules because you would have a team playing 3 power 5 schools go 2-1 lose a tiebreaker to a team that played 3 FCS schools and go 3-0 and that would hardly seem fair, and would be bad for scheduling in general to simply promote the best record OOC.

the cross over schedules are obviously not equal, look at Wisconsin had last year vs this year. this year is obviously a much easier road. the unbalanced schedules are a toss up too, sometimes you get 5 home games, sometimes 4.

I don't see an obvious resolution, so I guess the cross over while not equal, is what it is. I guess maybe you would start with common crossover opponents, then move to total cross over record, but I'm not sure that changes it much.

so I'm not sure how else you'd do it. maybe every team's punter gets 1 kick, longest punt wins. broadcast it live, the losing team's punter will have to change his name and transfer as his life is ruined.
Title: Re: B1G-E race
Post by: TresselownsUM on October 17, 2017, 02:55:56 PM
actually, i'll steal one from soccer. point differential in division.

plus the last week or two of the year, we'd have some teams just trying to murder each other by 100. sorry Rutgers.

some coaches would probably take the high road and not run it up, their fan bases would then have them fired.
Title: Re: B1G-E race
Post by: Cincydawg on October 17, 2017, 03:09:41 PM
I think I am seeing Ohio State "mature" on offense to the point they are very dangerous.

Title: Re: B1G-E race
Post by: PortlandSpartan on October 17, 2017, 03:31:30 PM
Quote from: ELA on October 17, 2017, 09:07:10 AM
If MSU can get through the remainder with less than 2 more losses, MD should win coach of the year in a landslide.  I'd be ecstatic to get to 9-3, and pretty damn happy with 8-4.
Coming into the season I would have been over the moon with 8-4. Seeing how the team has performed, I would still be pretty damn happy with that but IMO we should finish no worse than 9-3.

Lots left to go, but so far, this is looking like a COTY season for MD.
Title: Re: B1G-E race
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on October 17, 2017, 03:52:09 PM
Quote from: TresselownsUM on October 17, 2017, 02:53:10 PM
my guess is they went with the cross over schedules vs what some conferences did in the past which was use the formerly BCS rankings. You could use the bowl playoff committee, AP rankings etc, but in my opinion that's going to be weighted toward helmet schools.

I really don't like using OOC schedules because you would have a team playing 3 power 5 schools go 2-1 lose a tiebreaker to a team that played 3 FCS schools and go 3-0 and that would hardly seem fair, and would be bad for scheduling in general to simply promote the best record OOC.

the cross over schedules are obviously not equal, look at Wisconsin had last year vs this year. this year is obviously a much easier road. the unbalanced schedules are a toss up too, sometimes you get 5 home games, sometimes 4.

I don't see an obvious resolution, so I guess the cross over while not equal, is what it is. I guess maybe you would start with common crossover opponents, then move to total cross over record, but I'm not sure that changes it much.

so I'm not sure how else you'd do it. maybe every team's punter gets 1 kick, longest punt wins. broadcast it live, the losing team's punter will have to change his name and transfer as his life is ruined.
They left overall winning percentage in the mix but demoted it to tiebreaker #7 (only ahead of random draw).  I like that because I, like you, don't like the idea that a school going 2-1 against three P5 loses on that to a school that goes 3-0 against FCS.  
They do have common crossover opponents in there but I worded it wrong in my OP.  I'll go fix that.  Tiebreaker #4 should be "Record among all common conference opponents".  Effectively that is "record against common crossover opponents because it comes after divisional record so any three+ teams that get to that step already have equal records overall, H2H...2H, and within the division.  
Quote from: TresselownsUM on October 17, 2017, 02:55:56 PM
actually, i'll steal one from soccer. point differential in division. 

plus the last week or two of the year, we'd have some teams just trying to murder each other by 100. sorry Rutgers.

some coaches would probably take the high road and not run it up, their fan bases would then have them fired.
I am in favor of a modified version of this.  I am opposed to overall point differential for two reasons:
The modified version that I would favor would be point differential among the tied teams.  The most famous three-way tie for a divisional crown that would have been settled by a tiebreaker this far down the list was the Texas/Oklahoma/Texas Tech three-way 7-1 tie for the B12-S back in 2008:
My proposal would break that tie as follows:

Similarly, if Michigan had defeated Iowa last year to create a 3-way tie atop the B1G-E I would have looked at the games among the tied teams:
Thus, I would have broken that hypothetical tie as follows:
Title: Re: B1G-E race
Post by: LittlePig on October 17, 2017, 05:15:32 PM
I am not a big fan of point differential because it favors teams with high powered offenses like OSU and is unfavorable to teams like MSU which wins close games with ball control and defense.

I watched the entire Iowa-MSU game and felt like Iowa was totally dominated even though MSU only won by 7.  Yes I know turnovers can make a big difference,  but thats true in any game
Title: Re: B1G-E race
Post by: LittlePig on October 17, 2017, 05:17:39 PM
In general I have the same attitude about tie breaker rules as I do about overtime rules.  If you don't like the rules, then win the damn thing without finishing in a tie.
Title: Re: B1G-E race
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on October 17, 2017, 05:37:54 PM
Quote from: LittlePig on October 17, 2017, 05:15:32 PM
I am not a big fan of point differential because it favors teams with high powered offenses like OSU and is unfavorable to teams like MSU which wins close games with ball control and defense.

I watched the entire Iowa-MSU game and felt like Iowa was totally dominated even though MSU only won by 7.  Yes I know turnovers can make a big difference,  but thats true in any game
I think that problem is at least partially solved by having it as point differential among the tied teams only.  Against Rutgers the Buckeyes are likely to have a bigger win just due to style.  However, against a relative equal such as MSU, M, or PSU this is much less of an issue.  
Title: Re: B1G-E race
Post by: LittlePig on October 17, 2017, 05:52:20 PM
 Yup if you project out final cross-division opponent records, Mich would still win any final 8-1 3-way ties.

Ohio State: (9-18)

Penn State: (12-15)

Michigan State: (10-17)

Michigan: (14-13)


What would be more interesting is if OSU, MSU, PSU end in 3-way tie.  PSU would win if NW > ILL,  but OSU would win if ILL > NW.  Imagine going into the last weekend, ILL and NW are tied with 1-7 records.  
Title: Re: B1G-E race
Post by: FearlessF on October 17, 2017, 07:04:45 PM
NW>ILL
Title: Re: B1G-E race
Post by: LittlePig on October 17, 2017, 11:22:25 PM
Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on October 17, 2017, 05:37:54 PM
I think that problem is at least partially solved by having it as point differential among the tied teams only.  Against Rutgers the Buckeyes are likely to have a bigger win just due to style.  However, against a relative equal such as MSU, M, or PSU this is much less of an issue.  
A win counts the same whether it is by 1 point or 35 points.  1 win = 1 win.   1 loss = 1 loss.  Point difference does not matter. 
 I know you have to break the tie somehow but its better not to include point difference.   Michigan the last 2 years is a great example why.  Blowing out teams in mid-season wins then losing close games at the end of the season.  Mich dominated in point differential but not in wins and losses.
Title: Re: B1G-E race
Post by: TresselownsUM on October 18, 2017, 11:18:50 AM
I dunno, I'm starting to warm to the idea of point differential, and I get that "playing style" can change things, but if Penn State beat's Michigan 42-10 this weekend vs beating them 13-10, I think most people would agree the 42-10 win was more impressive, more dominant etc.

ultimately if you are using a tiebreaker you lost to somebody, so you got no one to blame but yourself, ala Ohio State 2 of the last 3 years.

When we played Tresselball and beat teams by 3 points I'd still be fine with using a point differential in the formula at some point, maybe not as the first tiebreaker.
Title: Re: B1G-E race
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on October 18, 2017, 11:45:07 AM
Quote from: TresselownsUM on October 18, 2017, 11:18:50 AM
I dunno, I'm starting to warm to the idea of point differential, and I get that "playing style" can change things, but if Penn State beat's Michigan 42-10 this weekend vs beating them 13-10, I think most people would agree the 42-10 win was more impressive, more dominant etc.

ultimately if you are using a tiebreaker you lost to somebody, so you got no one to blame but yourself, ala Ohio State 2 of the last 3 years.

When we played Tresselball and beat teams by 3 points I'd still be fine with using a point differential in the formula at some point, maybe not as the first tiebreaker.
I think the part of your statement that I bolded is key.  I am not, and I don't think anybody is advocating the use of point differential in place of winning percentage or even as an early tiebreaker.  What we are discussing here is the fourth or fifth tiebreaker in a multi-team tie.  
The current system to break a multi-team tie is:

Personally, I am strongly opposed to the use of #7 simply because it rewards teams for playing an easy schedule and punishes teams for playing a tough schedule.  Ie, at present it appears that Oklahoma is the best team that any B1G team played OOC.  Ohio State lost that game.  IMHO, no team should ever be deprived of a B1GCG spot based on playing a challenging OOC.  

I am mildly opposed to #3 and #6 because they effectively reward bad losses.  I get the idea.  The idea is to reward good wins and that is fine but in a tie situation everyone has losses.  Thus this effectively rewards bad losses because a team with a good win still has to have lost to someone.  

I'm not thrilled with #5 because I think that it would be a great tiebreaker in some situations and a terrible one in other situations.