CFB51 College Football Fan Community

The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on August 14, 2018, 10:43:32 AM

Title: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on August 14, 2018, 10:43:32 AM
This only applies to B1GCG participation.  From the B1G website (http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/archive/081011aaa.html).  

In a two-way tie the winner of the H2H game goes to the B1GCG.  

In a multiple team tie the following tiebreakers apply.  Note that if only two teams remain after any step the H2H winner among those two goes to the B1GCG.  However, if three or more teams remain tied after any step the remaining teams move to the NEXT step (ie, the remaining teams do not revert to step 1):
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: JerseyTerrapin on August 14, 2018, 11:14:24 AM
#8 would sting.  Has that ever happened in the history of mankind?  I guess it happened in Friday Night Lights (in the book at least, can't say either way for the movie)...
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: FearlessF on August 14, 2018, 11:30:24 AM
happened in the Big 12

They randomly picked the team they felt gave the conference the best representative to make money

it stung
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on August 14, 2018, 12:09:55 PM
Overall I like it, but there are some things that I find odd.  

It seems really strange to me that if two teams are left after any step you revert to step-1, but if three or more are left you instead keep moving through the steps.  

I personally think that in most cases step-5 and step-6 should be switched.  

Looking at last year in the B1G-E:
Ohio State finished 8-1, one game ahead of PSU and MSU.  Imagine instead that Ohio State had lost to Penn State but that Penn State had lost to Iowa and that MSU had lost to Iowa instead of NU such that all three finished 7-2.  

The tiebreakers:

If #5 and #6 were reversed then tOSU would have been eliminated first and MSU would have won the tie based on H2H win over PSU.  

I guess my argument for switching #5 and #6 is that it matters more who your best opponents were than who your worst opponents were.  
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on August 14, 2018, 12:11:56 PM
happened in the Big 12

They randomly picked the team they felt gave the conference the best representative to make money

it stung
I think I like taking subjective rankings and subjective theories of who would make more money out of it and making it completely objective as the B1G has done.  It is more fair this way.  
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on August 14, 2018, 12:14:59 PM
#8 would sting.  Has that ever happened in the history of mankind?  I guess it happened in Friday Night Lights (in the book at least, can't say either way for the movie)...
I think it would be extraordinarily unlikely to get all the way to #8 in the B1G.  You would have to have three teams in the same division and in order to get that far the tie would almost have to be at 8-1 and 1-1 against each other.  I say that because if they each lost another game or two then that would likely trigger other steps unless they all lost to the same opponent.  Then their B1G-W opponents would have to have the exact same records and they would have to have the exact same OOC record.  
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: FearlessF on August 14, 2018, 12:45:24 PM
I think I like taking subjective rankings and subjective theories of who would make more money out of it and making it completely objective as the B1G has done.  It is more fair this way.  
my memory is bad, but I think the last tie-breaker for the Big 12 now is BCS ranking
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: Anonymous Coward on August 14, 2018, 12:49:20 PM
I continue to strongly believe that we should NOT step into the tiebreaker scenario if the overall conference record is tied but if the division record is tied. Which means that after the season, Division record should be compared and, in the event of ties, H2H is #1 and Conference record should be the #2 tiebreaker.
This is the only straightforward way to control for schedule differences between divisionmates in a bloated conference. 
I don't care if you have more losses than me over all. If we are in the same division and you have fewer division losses, you're better than me and have earned the championship bid, full stop.
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 14, 2018, 12:52:37 PM
my memory is bad, but I think the last tie-breaker for the Big 12 now is BCS ranking
It used to be that. Now they have the playoff ranking and CCG, no?
Anyway, the Big11 had BCS rank as a tiebreaker until UNL showed up.
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: FearlessF on August 14, 2018, 12:53:54 PM

Anyway, the Big11 had BCS rank as a tiebreaker until UNL showed up.
yes, that's all about $$$/Helmet
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: Anonymous Coward on August 14, 2018, 12:54:42 PM
It could be pointed out that making division record paramount will diminish the significance of the regular season (interdivisional games would matter less). But the effect is small and in the CCG and CFP era, that ship ("diminished regular season") has already sailed.
It could also be argued that giving the bid to the best division record will, in some years, send a team with a lesser chance at the CFP to the CCG, but to me that's akin to saying we care less about naming a true champion than the sexiest team of 201X.
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on August 14, 2018, 12:57:02 PM
my memory is bad, but I think the last tie-breaker for the Big 12 now is BCS ranking
Last I looked, their ranking tiebreaker was a convoluted mess in which CFP ranking was decisive but only if the teams in question were separated by more than a set number of spots.  Ie, if the higher ranked team was 15 spots ahead they would get the nod but not if they were immediately ahead of the other team.  
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 14, 2018, 01:01:48 PM
yes, that's all about $$$/Helmet
It last benefitted UW. :)
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on August 14, 2018, 01:11:07 PM
It could be pointed out that making division record paramount will diminish the significance of the regular season (interdivisional games). But the effect is small and in the CCG and CFP era, that ship ("diminished regular season") has already sailed.
It could also be argued that giving the bid to the best division record will, in some years, send a team with a lesser chance at the CFP to the CCG, but to me that's akin to saying we care less about naming a true champion than the sexiest team of 201X.
I continue to strongly believe that we should NOT step into the tiebreaker scenario if the overall conference record is tied but if the division record is tied. Which means that after the season, Division record should be compared and, in the event of ties, H2H is #1 and Conference record should be the #2 tiebreaker.
This is the only straightforward way to control for schedule differences between divisionmates in a bloated conference.
I don't care if you have more losses than me over all. If we are in the same division and you have fewer division losses, you're better than me and have earned the championship bid, full stop.
I get where you are coming from and in some cases I certainly agree, but in others I do not and it would be nearly impossible to devise an objective rule that could differentiate between the two cases.  
A hypothetical example in which I would agree with you:
Suppose that Wisconsin ends up being just a steamroller and destroying everyone in their path this year.  In the B1G-E that would be bad for PSU and M who play Wisconsin and good for MSU and tOSU who do not.  (Note, I'm assuming here that those four are the only contenders for the B1G-E and that IU, UMD, and RU will be also-rans).  
In that case I would agree with you because it is "unfair" for the Nittany Lions and Wolverines to be penalized for playing a tougher schedule than the Buckeyes and Spartans.  
A hypothetical example in which I would disagree with you:
Suppose that the Wolverines, Buckeyes, and Nittany Lions go 1-1 against each other and 6-1 against their other conference foes with each of the three losing in a shocking upset, Michigan to Rutgers, Penn State to Indiana, and Ohio State to Minnesota.  
In that case I would disagree with you because I don't think that the Buckeyes should be rewarded for losing to a crappy team from the other division rather than losing to a crappy team from the same division.  Note, however, that the Buckeyes would win this tie in the current structure anyway because it would go to tiebreaker #2, divisional record in which Ohio State would be 5-1 while Penn State and Michigan were each 4-2.  
Where I would STRONGLY disagree with you:
I think we are moving toward and will eventually arrive at a playoff system in which the P5 Champions get auto-bids.  One thing that I would NOT like about that is that it would render OOC games nothing more than exhibitions.  If we further made cross-divisional games into non-factors in the divisional race then those games would also, effectively, be exhibitions.  In that situation Ohio State could literally lose to Oregon State, TCU, Tulane, Minnesota, Purdue, and Nebraska (six games) and still control their own destiny for the National Championship because winning the other six would get them to the B1GCG and winning that would get them to the (enlarged) CFP.  
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: rolltidefan on August 14, 2018, 01:40:00 PM
question on #6, is that not common opponents?

sec has similar rule, but it's for common opponents faced.
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: Anonymous Coward on August 14, 2018, 01:49:31 PM
I get where you are coming from and in some cases I certainly agree, but in others I do not and it would be nearly impossible to devise an objective rule that could differentiate between the two cases.  
A hypothetical example in which I would agree with you:
Suppose that Wisconsin ends up being just a steamroller and destroying everyone in their path this year.  In the B1G-E that would be bad for PSU and M who play Wisconsin and good for MSU and tOSU who do not.  (Note, I'm assuming here that those four are the only contenders for the B1G-E and that IU, UMD, and RU will be also-rans).  
In that case I would agree with you because it is "unfair" for the Nittany Lions and Wolverines to be penalized for playing a tougher schedule than the Buckeyes and Spartans.  
A hypothetical example in which I would disagree with you:
Suppose that the Wolverines, Buckeyes, and Nittany Lions go 1-1 against each other and 6-1 against their other conference foes with each of the three losing in a shocking upset, Michigan to Rutgers, Penn State to Indiana, and Ohio State to Minnesota.  
In that case I would disagree with you because I don't think that the Buckeyes should be rewarded for losing to a crappy team from the other division rather than losing to a crappy team from the same division.  Note, however, that the Buckeyes would win this tie in the current structure anyway because it would go to tiebreaker #2, divisional record in which Ohio State would be 5-1 while Penn State and Michigan were each 4-2.  
Where I would STRONGLY disagree with you:
I think we are moving toward and will eventually arrive at a playoff system in which the P5 Champions get auto-bids.  One thing that I would NOT like about that is that it would render OOC games nothing more than exhibitions.  If we further made cross-divisional games into non-factors in the divisional race then those games would also, effectively, be exhibitions.  In that situation Ohio State could literally lose to Oregon State, TCU, Tulane, Minnesota, Purdue, and Nebraska (six games) and still control their own destiny for the National Championship because winning the other six would get them to the B1GCG and winning that would get them to the (enlarged) CFP.  
I'm not sure I agree (in the "might disagree" option, OSU lost to Minnesota and went ***undefeated*** within the division. Yes, IMO, they deserve the division crown even if they lost EVERY other interdivisional game).
Then, even if I fully did agree, a lot of the trouble spots you cite can be eliminated by only addressing division record first if there are two or fewer teams at the top.
Your counter examples include three-team ties.
What is an example of a scenario where a team that is (1) alone at the top of the division record or (2) tied with precisely one team at the top of the division record isn't the team most deserving of that division's CCG bid?
So this proposal would have two tiers:
A. Address division record. If two or fewer teams are at the top, proceed to name the champ (if only one) or execute the H2H tiebreaker. If three or more teams are tied at the top, proceed to option B.
B. Move to Conference record. If ties remain: Execute the circa 2017 tiebreaker list.
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: ELA on August 14, 2018, 02:37:34 PM
It used to be that. Now they have the playoff ranking and CCG, no?
Anyway, the Big11 had BCS rank as a tiebreaker until UNL showed up.
It was the longest Rose Bowl drought for a long time.  I actually think Wisconsin going over MSU in 2010 is one of the first cases of that no longer being the rule.
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: ELA on August 14, 2018, 02:38:49 PM
happened in the Big 12

They randomly picked the team they felt gave the conference the best representative to make money

it stung
ADs voted 6-4 in 1974 to send OSU to the Rose Bowl over Michigan, because UMs QB was injured.
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 14, 2018, 02:57:18 PM
It was the longest Rose Bowl drought for a long time.  I actually think Wisconsin going over MSU in 2010 is one of the first cases of that no longer being the rule.
Yes, it was, and UW also benefitted from that 2 times in a 5 year stretch.
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: FearlessF on August 14, 2018, 03:16:17 PM
ADs voted 6-4 in 1974 to send OSU to the Rose Bowl over Michigan, because UMs QB was injured.
Bo didn't see it that way, or didn't much care for the reasoning
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: ELA on August 14, 2018, 03:47:42 PM
Bo didn't see it that way, or didn't much care for the reasoning
That was the PC answer.  I'm sure all of the politics were more convoluted than that.  Probably shouldn't have worked so hard to keep MSU out.  They have have voted for them.
OSU did lead the Big Ten in both scoring offense and scoring defense that year.  Scoring offense by over a touchdown per game too.  Michigan was 2nd in both, lagged quite a bit in offense, but the defense was right there.  OSU was at like 5.8 ppg, and UM was like 6.3, because 70s Big Ten football.
Considering that during the "TEN YEAR WAR," during which the conference was trash, from 1970-1980 the Big Ten went 1-10 in Rose Bowls (UM 0-5, OSU 1-5), and this was the Big Ten's lone win, a blowout win over USC, I guess it worked out ok,
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: FearlessF on August 14, 2018, 03:51:48 PM
NEVER gonna convince BO
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: Riffraft on August 14, 2018, 03:58:14 PM
Yes, it was, and UW also benefitted from that 2 times in a 5 year stretch.
Now now let's not give opinions on the actual facts. We all know it was because Ohio state bribed all the other ADs. :)BTW it was 1973 not 1974 <tongue firmly planted in cheek>
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on August 14, 2018, 04:13:17 PM
question on #6, is that not common opponents?

sec has similar rule, but it's for common opponents faced.
It specifically is not. Common opponents are covered elsewhere and, if you click the link, it specifically states that this applies even if the number of games is unequal then gives an examples including that 1-0 is better than 0-0 and that 0-0 is better than 0-1.
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on August 14, 2018, 04:27:00 PM
Considering that during the "TEN YEAR WAR," during which the conference was trash, from 1970-1980 the Big Ten went 1-10 in Rose Bowls (UM 0-5, OSU 1-5), and this was the Big Ten's lone win, a blowout win over USC, I guess it worked out ok,
I've never really understood Bo's and most Michigan fans' unceasing complaints about that. Ohio State was the better team by any objective measure you could use to break the tie.
That said, I think Michigan would have won the Rose Bowl that year also. As I've said before, I think both teams were good enough to win the NC in 1973 and they were both just unlucky that their main rival happened to be good enough to tie them.
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: FearlessF on August 14, 2018, 05:57:58 PM
the program I watched, Bo seemed to think other ADs voted not for Woody and Ohio State, but against him and Michigan because of some hard feelings
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: Brutus Buckeye on August 14, 2018, 09:42:52 PM
It could be pointed out that making division record paramount will diminish the significance of the regular season (interdivisional games would matter less). But the effect is small and in the CCG and CFP era, that ship ("diminished regular season") has already sailed.
It could also be argued that giving the bid to the best division record will, in some years, send a team with a lesser chance at the CFP to the CCG, but to me that's akin to saying we care less about naming a true champion than the sexiest team of 201X.
Interesting thinking, but it would almost defeat the purpose of even scheduling the crossover match ups. 
It would essentially be two conferences, with a scheduling alliance. 
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: FearlessF on August 15, 2018, 09:21:12 AM

It would essentially be two conferences, with a scheduling alliance.
great idea
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: rolltidefan on August 15, 2018, 10:07:23 AM
It specifically is not. Common opponents are covered elsewhere and, if you click the link, it specifically states that this applies even if the number of games is unequal then gives an examples including that 1-0 is better than 0-0 and that 0-0 is better than 0-1.
that's interesting, in sec it is the opposite. they also have a second provision with common opponents.
first common opp provision is record vs all common non-div opp.
second is record vs best common non-div opp, going down.
also different if the provision for best cumulative record vs non-div opp, which in sec is after those 2 i listed above (last one before coin flip) whereas the b1g is before.

just thought it was interesting.
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: LittlePig on August 15, 2018, 10:14:53 AM
Did this change since 2016?  I remember when it looked like OSU, Mich and PSU might have ended up 8-1, in a 3-way tie, the key tiebreaker at that time was PSU's OOC loss to Pitt.  

Of course Mich ended up losing its last 2 games and finished 7-2,  and PSU ended up 8-1,  winning a 2-way tiebreaker over OSU based on H2H.
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: Anonymous Coward on August 15, 2018, 11:58:49 AM
the program I watched, Bo seemed to think other ADs voted not for Woody and Ohio State, but against him and Michigan because of some hard feelings
He seemed to think it because it was almost certainly true. I recall Burt Smith at MSU nearly admitting as much.
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: FearlessF on August 15, 2018, 12:05:42 PM
yup, didn't seem to be much doubt or denial
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on August 15, 2018, 01:12:00 PM
Did this change since 2016?  I remember when it looked like OSU, Mich and PSU might have ended up 8-1, in a 3-way tie, the key tiebreaker at that time was PSU's OOC loss to Pitt.  

Of course Mich ended up losing its last 2 games and finished 7-2,  and PSU ended up 8-1,  winning a 2-way tiebreaker over OSU based on H2H.
I believe so.  It seems to me that they have changed it multiple times.  At one point the tiebreaker was CFP ranking and that created another interesting scenario that failed to materialize:  I don't remember the year, but for a while it looked like the B1G-W would be locked up but the B1G-E would be a three-way tie to-be-determined by the CFP ranking.  Problem was that the CFP rankings didn't come out until (I think), Tuesday.  Consequently, if that had happened the B1G-W Champion would not have known their opponent for three days while all three B1G-E co-champions would have been game-preping for the B1G-W Champ knowing that one of them would get there.  
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on August 15, 2018, 01:15:00 PM
that's interesting, in sec it is the opposite. they also have a second provision with common opponents.
first common opp provision is record vs all common non-div opp.
second is record vs best common non-div opp, going down.
also different if the provision for best cumulative record vs non-div opp, which in sec is after those 2 i listed above (last one before coin flip) whereas the b1g is before.

just thought it was interesting.
My guess is that it will almost never matter in either conference.  I think that the by far most likely 3-way tie is between teams that split with each other (1-1) and beat everybody else to go 8-1 (B1G) or 7-1 (SEC).  In that case all of those will be tied.  The decisive difference, at least in the B1G, would then be the strength of each team's non-divisional opponents.  
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on August 15, 2018, 01:45:03 PM
He seemed to think it because it was almost certainly true. I recall Burt Smith at MSU nearly admitting as much.
Maybe the AD's just voted for the obviously better team:
OpponentConf-WConf-LConf%L8-WL8-LL8-%tOSU-OtOSU-DtOSU marginM-OM-DM marginOffbyDefbyMarginby
Minnesota620.756015674934727O22even0O22
Michigan State440.5420.6666673503531031O4even0O4
Illinois440.5420.6666673003021615O9O6O15
Purdue440.5430.57142934925
Northwestern440.5430.57142960060
Wisconsin350.375330.52402435629M11O6M5
Indiana08006037730491336M12O6M6
Iowa08006055134231724O24M6O18
If I were the AD for Ohio State or Michigan I would advocate for my school.  If I were one of the other eight AD's I would vote based on which team I thought gave my conference the best chance to win the Rose Bowl and I just can't see how anyone can argue for Michigan on that basis even without the QB injury issue.  
As you know, in our power rankings I look a records against similar teams.  That is what I created the above chart to do for the 1973 season.  the Conf-W, Conf-L, and Conf% columns are pretty self-explanatory.  The L8-W, L8-L, and L8-% columns are Wins, Losses, and winning percentage in conference games not against Ohio State or Michigan.  I did that because in 1973 the "Little Eight" went 0-season against the Buckeyes and Wolverines.  In fact, none of them even got very close.  Illinois got the closest to Michigan, "only" losing by 15.  Wisconsin got the closest to Ohio State, "only" losing by 24.  
Note here that the three places where Michigan did better than Ohio State (Offense against Wisconsin and Indiana, Defense against Iowa) were against the three worst teams in the conference.  Additionally, the teams that Ohio State and Michigan missed (Purdue for Ohio State, Northwestern for Michigan) were reasonably equivalent.  They both went 4-4 in the conference and 4-3 against the Little Eight.  Ohio State's 60-0 win is thus much more impressive than Michigan's 34-9 win.  
Michigan's defense was almost but not quite as good as Ohio State's.  Ohio State's offense was clearly superior.  Anybody who voted for the best team voted for Ohio State.  
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: FearlessF on August 15, 2018, 01:56:56 PM
  If I were one of the other eight AD's I would vote based on which team I thought gave my conference the best chance to win the Rose Bowl 
hah hah hah
there was no Big Ten Network at that time
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on August 15, 2018, 02:06:07 PM
hah hah hah
there was no Big Ten Network at that time
I get that, but even before the conference networks I would still have wanted my conference to win the Rose Bowl.  Obviously I'd rather not be an also-ran, but if I have to be an also-ran I'd rather be an also-ran in a top-notch conference than an also-ran in a mediocre conference.  
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 15, 2018, 02:08:34 PM
No BTN, but there was this:

http://www.btaa.org/about/history


Always pretty strong ties.
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on August 15, 2018, 02:16:26 PM
Considering that during the "TEN YEAR WAR," during which the conference was trash, from 1970-1980 the Big Ten went 1-10 in Rose Bowls (UM 0-5, OSU 1-5), and this was the Big Ten's lone win, a blowout win over USC, I guess it worked out ok,
The little eight were certainly terrible and obviously the 1-10 stretch in Rose Bowls was bad but I do feel the need to point out that almost all of the losses were competitive games.  Those 11 were the 1970-1980 Rose Bowls (1969-1979 seasons).  
There were two big blowouts, USC's blowout of Ohio State in the 1973 RoseBowl (1972 season) and Ohio State's blowout of USC in the 1974 RoseBowl (1973 season).  The other nine PAC wins:

* I put an asterix next to Ohio State's 13 point loss in the 1976 RoseBowl because I want to point out that Ohio State beat UCLA in the Rose Bowl by 21 points in an OOC game on October 4.  My point being that it isn't like UCLA (and by extension the PAC) was clearly better than Ohio State (and by extension the Big Ten) that year.  They went 1-1 against each other.  
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: FearlessF on August 15, 2018, 02:21:44 PM
No BTN, but there was this:

http://www.btaa.org/about/history


Always pretty strong ties.
Bo knows strong ties

the vote was secret
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: rolltidefan on August 15, 2018, 02:22:48 PM
My guess is that it will almost never matter in either conference.  I think that the by far most likely 3-way tie is between teams that split with each other (1-1) and beat everybody else to go 8-1 (B1G) or 7-1 (SEC).  In that case all of those will be tied.  The decisive difference, at least in the B1G, would then be the strength of each team's non-divisional opponents.  
that's true of the sec as well. only difference is order in which the test is applied. in sec, should each teams non-div opp records be equal, it'd go to coin flip, whereas the b1g would still have steps 6-7 available before coin flip/random draw.
would take some stars aligning for those scenarios to pop up.
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: FearlessF on August 15, 2018, 02:26:25 PM
Michigan Coach Assails Big 10 Chief on Bowl Vote - The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/1973/11/27/archives/michigan-coach-assails-big-10-chief-on-bowl-vote-big-10-chief-is.html)

Michigan Steams as Ohio State Wins Bowl Vote - The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/1973/11/26/archives/michigan-steams-as-ohio-state-wins-bowl-vote-bowl-vote-to-ohio.html)

Tiebreaker - Extended Promo - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8tIa6s4nWg)
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on August 15, 2018, 02:38:18 PM
that's true of the sec as well. only difference is order in which the test is applied. in sec, should each teams non-div opp records be equal, it'd go to coin flip, whereas the b1g would still have steps 6-7 available before coin flip/random draw.
would take some stars aligning for those scenarios to pop up.
As I said upthread, I think that the most likely multi-team tie to get deep into the tiebreakers (in either conference) would be a three-way tie where the three teams went 1-1 against each other and beat all other (conference) opponents.  
By my reading of the B1G and SEC (http://www.secsports.com/article/11145479/sec-divisional-tie-breaker) tiebreakers that scenario in either conference would be decided based on cumulative record of non-divisional opponents:
The B1G tiebreakers applied to that scenario:
SEC tiebreakers applied to that scenario (note that on the SEC site linked above they order theirs by letter instead of number but I have switched it to numbers here):

Note that in both conferences once one of the three is eliminated the remaining two revert to H2H.  

This would obviously be bad for a team like Bama in 2017 when Bama's two SEC-E opponents were literally the worst two teams in the SEC-E (0-8 TN and 1-7 Vandy).  
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: Anonymous Coward on August 15, 2018, 02:55:00 PM
Maybe the AD's just voted for the obviously better team:
OpponentConf-WConf-LConf%L8-WL8-LL8-%tOSU-OtOSU-DtOSU marginM-OM-DM marginOffbyDefbyMarginby
Minnesota620.756015674934727O22even0O22
Michigan State440.5420.6666673503531031O4even0O4
Illinois440.5420.6666673003021615O9O6O15
Purdue440.5430.57142934925
Northwestern440.5430.57142960060
Wisconsin350.375330.52402435629M11O6M5
Indiana08006037730491336M12O6M6
Iowa08006055134231724O24M6O18
If I were the AD for Ohio State or Michigan I would advocate for my school.  If I were one of the other eight AD's I would vote based on which team I thought gave my conference the best chance to win the Rose Bowl and I just can't see how anyone can argue for Michigan on that basis even without the QB injury issue.  
As you know, in our power rankings I look a records against similar teams.  That is what I created the above chart to do for the 1973 season.  the Conf-W, Conf-L, and Conf% columns are pretty self-explanatory.  The L8-W, L8-L, and L8-% columns are Wins, Losses, and winning percentage in conference games not against Ohio State or Michigan.  I did that because in 1973 the "Little Eight" went 0-season against the Buckeyes and Wolverines.  In fact, none of them even got very close.  Illinois got the closest to Michigan, "only" losing by 15.  Wisconsin got the closest to Ohio State, "only" losing by 24.  
Note here that the three places where Michigan did better than Ohio State (Offense against Wisconsin and Indiana, Defense against Iowa) were against the three worst teams in the conference.  Additionally, the teams that Ohio State and Michigan missed (Purdue for Ohio State, Northwestern for Michigan) were reasonably equivalent.  They both went 4-4 in the conference and 4-3 against the Little Eight.  Ohio State's 60-0 win is thus much more impressive than Michigan's 34-9 win.  
Michigan's defense was almost but not quite as good as Ohio State's.  Ohio State's offense was clearly superior.  Anybody who voted for the best team voted for Ohio State.  
My point didn't require numbers. Even if Burt Smith could have voted for OSU on merit, he all but admitted to voting against Michigan out of pettiness.
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: Anonymous Coward on August 15, 2018, 03:06:11 PM
Interesting thinking, but it would almost defeat the purpose of even scheduling the crossover match ups.
It would essentially be two conferences, with a scheduling alliance.
What's more important, valuing the interdivisional games or valuing the divisional games? Either way, one gets shorted. And since we are calling them "Division Champs," my primary interest is that nobody ever, under any scenario, goes undefeated in their division but misses the CCG. 
If Indiana beats Michigan, PSU, OSU, MSU and all the rest but loses to Wisconsin and Nebraska in the West, Indiana should still be in the CCG, even if one or more of M/PSU/OSU/MSU only lost to Indiana and was otherwise unbested in conference.
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: rolltidefan on August 15, 2018, 03:13:05 PM
What's more important, valuing the interdivisional games or valuing the divisional games? Either way, one gets shorted. And since we are calling them "Division Champs," my primary interest is that nobody ever, under any scenario, goes undefeated in their division but misses the CCG.
If Indiana beats Michigan, PSU, OSU, MSU and all the rest but loses to Wisconsin and Nebraska in the West, Indiana should still be in the CCG, even if one or more of M/PSU/OSU/MSU only lost to Indiana and was otherwise unbested in conference.
i think of it a little different. to me, you were/are part of the conference first, and the div is just the mechanism used to determine the ccg participants.
were these 2 groups that joined to form a conf, i might feel more inclined to agree with you, but they aren't. alabama is an sec member, not an secw member.
though it is next to impossible to argue against the inequity in schedules. and i'll admit these superconf are pushing the boundaries of that train of thought.
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: ELA on August 15, 2018, 03:19:24 PM
My point didn't require numbers. Even if Burt Smith could have voted for OSU on merit, he all but admitted to voting against Michigan out of pettiness.
Pettiness?  Maybe revenge.  Granted he was a UM alum, so I'm sure that revenge push came from elsewhere within the university.
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: Anonymous Coward on August 15, 2018, 04:24:05 PM
Pettiness?  Maybe revenge.  Granted he was a UM alum, so I'm sure that revenge push came from elsewhere within the university.
When is revenge not petty? Revenge is petty. 
Even if you disagree, deciding on the basis of revenge is not deciding on the basis of merit, which is all my post was about.
I think your guess about the push from "elsewhere" in the community is correct, by the way
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: medinabuckeye1 on August 15, 2018, 04:42:05 PM
were these 2 groups that joined to form a conf, i might feel more inclined to agree with you, but they aren't. alabama is an sec member, not an secw member. 
So, back when the B12 was essentially the old Big8 (as the B12-N) and the old SWC (as the B12-S) would you then have favored AC's division record uber alles approach?  
I'm sure you are aware of this but for any readers unaware of the history, the B12 was formed in 1996 when the old Big8 (Nebraska, ISU, Colo, Kansas, KSU, Mizzou, Oklahoma, OkSU) invited Texas, aTm, TxTech, and Baylor from the collapsing SWC to join.  From 1996-2010 the former SWC Texas schools along with the two Oklahoma schools made up the B12-S while the other six old Big8 schools made up the B12-N.  
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: ELA on August 15, 2018, 05:07:03 PM
When is revenge not petty? Revenge is petty.
Even if you disagree, deciding on the basis of revenge is not deciding on the basis of merit, which is all my post was about.
I think your guess about the push from "elsewhere" in the community is correct, by the way
I think it goes above, I know there was some issue involving tv rights.money between UM/MSU that was going on around that time.  So while I'm sure the number of times UM had voted against MSU both academically and athletically was a factor, I think there were additional reasons that UM being left out were good for MSU as well.  There had been a recent battle over tv rights splits for the UM-MSU game that I believe went in UMs favor, where UM got a greater than 50-50 split for games in AA< but it was 50-50 when the game was in EL.  So there was some amount of fighting against their argument that UM was the vastly superior product, in an argument for increased tv revenue money.  But yes, revenge was the largest factor I have to assume, for both MSU (who had been voted against repeatedly by UM) and Northwestern (who had been targeted by Canham a couple of times, once with a new rule mandating minimums to be paid to visiting opponents, that Northwestern couldn't reach, and against by spearheading a drive to prevent Northwestern from allowing the Bears to use their stadium.
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: rolltidefan on August 15, 2018, 05:26:42 PM
So, back when the B12 was essentially the old Big8 (as the B12-N) and the old SWC (as the B12-S) would you then have favored AC's division record uber alles approach?  
I'm sure you are aware of this but for any readers unaware of the history, the B12 was formed in 1996 when the old Big8 (Nebraska, ISU, Colo, Kansas, KSU, Mizzou, Oklahoma, OkSU) invited Texas, aTm, TxTech, and Baylor from the collapsing SWC to join.  From 1996-2010 the former SWC Texas schools along with the two Oklahoma schools made up the B12-S while the other six old Big8 schools made up the B12-N.  
i'm not necessarily in favor of it, but yes, i would have felt the use more justified in that instance. in fact, i almost used that as an example.
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: Anonymous Coward on August 15, 2018, 09:00:38 PM
I think it goes above, I know there was some issue involving tv rights.money between UM/MSU that was going on around that time.  So while I'm sure the number of times UM had voted against MSU both academically and athletically was a factor, I think there were additional reasons that UM being left out were good for MSU as well.  There had been a recent battle over tv rights splits for the UM-MSU game that I believe went in UMs favor, where UM got a greater than 50-50 split for games in AA< but it was 50-50 when the game was in EL.  So there was some amount of fighting against their argument that UM was the vastly superior product, in an argument for increased tv revenue money.  But yes, revenge was the largest factor I have to assume, for both MSU (who had been voted against repeatedly by UM) and Northwestern (who had been targeted by Canham a couple of times, once with a new rule mandating minimums to be paid to visiting opponents, that Northwestern couldn't reach, and against by spearheading a drive to prevent Northwestern from allowing the Bears to use their stadium.
Yeah my point isn't to say it was "bad." It was a petty thing that was also smart. Perhaps unprincipled, but objectively who cares? I feel the same way about Michigan diminishing as many of MSU's strivings as possible between 1900-1950. Petty. Brilliant. Perhaps unprincipled, but this is not religion or philosophy and is a zero-sum game; I'd definitely prefer my side try to max out its game strategy.
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: 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).
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: ELA on August 16, 2018, 08:44:10 AM
Yeah my point isn't to say it was "bad." It was a petty thing that was also smart. Perhaps unprincipled, but objectively who cares? I feel the same way about Michigan diminishing as many of MSU's strivings as possible between 1900-1950. Petty. Brilliant. Perhaps unprincipled, but this is not religion or philosophy and is a zero-sum game; I'd definitely prefer my side try to max out its game strategy.
Yeah, I wasn't disagreeing, I just think it was double pronged.  I'm sure he, as a UM alum, cared little about revenge for those past votes.  I'm sure others in the administration let him know.  But considering the onging tv rights battles between UM and MSU, I think he also had a legitimate stake in reducing UMs visibility.
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: 847badgerfan on August 16, 2018, 10:49:59 AM
What was Michigan's position when it came time to vote on MSU for AAU membership?
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: ELA on August 16, 2018, 11:01:04 AM
What was Michigan's position when it came time to vote on MSU for AAU membership?
I'm not sure those votes are public?
The known roadblocks were (1) trying to convince the state to add the new ag school to the existing UM campus rather than create a new one, which the Agriculture Secretary disagreed with; (2) after the Civil War, and the signing of the Morrill Act, against trying to convince lawmakers to combine the two schools in Ann Arbor, as UM was actually struggling mightily financially at the time, and was in danger of closing, while MSU (MAC) was flush with federal money.  UM submitted to the merger proposal to the floor 4 times over a 6 year period, and it was voted down each time; (3) trying to prevent MAC from adding an engineering school in 1908, which the Morrill Act actually required; (4) trying to prevent MAC from removing Agriculture from its name in 1925, and change to MSC; (5) Big Ten membership in 1949; (6) changing from MSC to MSU in 1964; (6) acquisition and eventual merger of Detroit College of Law into MSU Law School in 1995
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: rolltidefan on August 16, 2018, 12:00:23 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.
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: ELA 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.
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: betarhoalphadelta 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.
Title: Re: B1G tiebreakers
Post by: ELA on August 16, 2018, 12:12:50 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.