Big Ten Changing Tie-Breaking Procedure? Not Good

Donate To GopherHole
M

Maximus

Active member
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
5,236
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Here's the link:

http://www.thewizofodds.com/the_wiz_of_odds/2009/02/a-big-step-back-for-the-big-ten.html#more

Division I-AA opponents now treated the same as Division I-A (or whatever its called now). One of the tiebreaking steps was to eliminate the team that played more I-AA opponents. GONE.

Also eliminating the who's been there most recent....hey, that's great news for the traveling juggernauts of Minnesota, Indiana, Northwestern....God forbid they tie for the title with Ohio State. No bid for you.

And then....going to the same tiebreaking procedure that screwed Texas in the Big XII....who's higher in the BCS. Ohio State starts the year #1...goes 11-1. Minnesota starts the year unranked and goes 11-1. Wonder who'll be higher?

Hopefully I misread all this. Doesn't sound like a done deal yet.

I hope one of these seasons it will matter to us.
 

The Big 12 was ridiculed because it used the BCS standings to determine who played in the conference championship game which essentially ended Texas' bid for a national championship. The key difference is that the Big Ten doesn't play a conference championship so the tie breaker doesn't come in to play until after all of the games have been played.

The BCS tie breaker makes a lot more sense than the former tie breaker which selected the team that had played the least number of FCS opponents in the non-conference (even though PSU was 4-0 ooc w/ a win over Oregon St., OSU was 3-1 w/ a loss to USC and MSU was 3-1 w/ a loss to Cal, MSU would have won a tie breaker if PSU, MSU & OSU were tied...this would have happened if PSU lost to MSU instead of Iowa). I'm sorry but going 4-0 with 3 wins over D-I opponents is better than going 3-1 with 3 wins over D-I opponents unless the 3-1 is against much better opponents and the old tiebreaker didn't directly measure SOS. Moving over to the BCS as a tie breaker indirectly takes in to account OOC record & SOS which is definitely better than what we had.
 

grunkiejr said:
The Big 12 was ridiculed because it used the BCS standings to determine who played in the conference championship game which essentially ended Texas' bid for a national championship. The key difference is that the Big Ten doesn't play a conference championship so the tie breaker doesn't come in to play until after all of the games have been played.

The BCS tie breaker makes a lot more sense than the former tie breaker which selected the team that had played the least number of FCS opponents in the non-conference (even though PSU was 4-0 ooc w/ a win over Oregon St., OSU was 3-1 w/ a loss to USC and MSU was 3-1 w/ a loss to Cal, MSU would have won a tie breaker if PSU, MSU & OSU were tied...this would have happened if PSU lost to MSU instead of Iowa). I'm sorry but going 4-0 with 3 wins over D-I opponents is better than going 3-1 with 3 wins over D-I opponents unless the 3-1 is against much better opponents and the old tiebreaker didn't directly measure SOS. Moving over to the BCS as a tie breaker indirectly takes in to account OOC record & SOS which is definitely better than what we had.
Click to expand...

Anybody else getting deja vu from this post?
 

Maximus said:
the same tiebreaking procedure that screwed Texas in the Big XII.
Click to expand...


The biggest misconception in all of sports in the last few months is this idea that a big miscarriage of justice happened to TX. How exactly? In a three-way tie when all parties beat each other and when all have the same overall record, how do you suggest you determine a 'winner'?

If you select TX to go the Big 12 title game, then Texas Tech gets screwed (TT beat TX). If TT goes then OU gets screwed because it beat TT. If OU goes then TX gets screwed because it beat OU. You see...its a dog chasing its tail. It is impossible to reach a logical conclusion.

And, it isn't like the Big 12 just randomly said let's screw Texas. Instead, the Big 12 set into action a tie-breaking procedure which was set ahead of time and all parties knew the rules. They reached the SEVENTH tie-breaker, which was highest BCS ranking. I'm guessing they figured they'd never ever get to the 7th tie-breaker, but they did and OU won it fair and square. It is tough to swallow if your TX, but a well-thought out set of rules was in place and they implemented those rules properly.

So, tough break for TX? Sure. Unfair? No.
 

the BCS tie breaker is one of the worst thing to ever come into College Football. the ncaa should banned all conference from including the bcs tie breaker as one of there tie breaker.
 


Of the 3-way tie tiebreakers, with everyone 1-1 vs the other 2, the SEC has it right.

Eliminate the lowest ranked BCS team. Then if the other 2 teams are within 6 spots of each other, head-to-head between those 2 teams is used.
 

tjgopher said:
If you select TX to go the Big 12 title game, then Texas Tech gets screwed (TT beat TX). If TT goes then OU gets screwed because it beat TT. If OU goes then TX gets screwed because it beat OU. You see...its a dog chasing its tail. It is impossible to reach a logical conclusion.
Click to expand...

You don't lose by 44 points and have an argument for anything.

Texas beat OU. Logical conclusion.
 


Maximus said:
Here's the link:

http://www.thewizofodds.com/the_wiz_of_odds/2009/02/a-big-step-back-for-the-big-ten.html#more

Division I-AA opponents now treated the same as Division I-A (or whatever its called now). One of the tiebreaking steps was to eliminate the team that played more I-AA opponents. GONE.

Also eliminating the who's been there most recent....hey, that's great news for the traveling juggernauts of Minnesota, Indiana, Northwestern....God forbid they tie for the title with Ohio State. No bid for you.

And then....going to the same tiebreaking procedure that screwed Texas in the Big XII....who's higher in the BCS. Ohio State starts the year #1...goes 11-1. Minnesota starts the year unranked and goes 11-1. Wonder who'll be higher?

Hopefully I misread all this. Doesn't sound like a done deal yet.

I hope one of these seasons it will matter to us.
Click to expand...

If these are indeed the proposed changes and they go into effect, will anyone really be surprised?? College football is all about bottom line dollars. Nothing more, nothing less. They want the best teams to have the advantage when it comes to bids because they know it will automatically mean more money in their pockets.

This is also why they won't do away with the bowl system all-together. The presidents see all the $$$ they get from getting to a certain bowl game and they don't want to lose that money. Certainly, a playoff is a much better option, but as long as the bowls have their copyright advantages in terms of guaranteed money just for showing up, there won't be any changes to the system.

The NCAA WANTS the big schools to continue to succeed. They aren't interested in parity, like we see in college basketball. They want the USCs, Floridas, Alabamas, Notre Dames, Michigans, Ohio States and Texases, to succeed because it makes them a fortune in TV revenue on a yearly basis. And if they have to change the rules to ensure that happens, you can bet they will. That's why if they can do away with the whole "latest team to be there" scenario, they almost certainly will.

College football is all about being one of the power brokers. And if you're one of those power brokers, you'll have the NCAA's ear and their influence on your side.
 



Maximus said:
You don't lose by 44 points and have an argument for anything.

Texas beat OU. Logical conclusion.
Click to expand...

Yeah just what college football needs - a margin of victory dynamic. That would be swell.
 

tjgopher said:
Yeah just what college football needs - a margin of victory dynamic. That would be swell.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's called common sense.

Just like common sense said Nebraska should not have played in the title game when they lost 62-36 in the final game of the regular season.
 

Caravan Shaker said:
Anybody else getting deja vu from this post?
Click to expand...

Copied and pasted from the original thread on this subject. :)

If Maximus is too lazy to check the whole first page of the message board for a similar thread then I will be too lazy to come up with another original thought on the subject.
 

Maximus said:
Actually, it's called common sense.
Click to expand...

Yeah, never mind the unintended consequences of every coach with a good team running up the score no matter the situation. As I said, just what college football needs.
 



tjgopher said:
Yeah, never mind the unintended consequences of every coach with a good team running up the score no matter the situation.
Click to expand...

Ah yes....God forbid we hurt the feelings of 18-21 years olds. They'll be scarred for life.
 



Maximus said:
Ah yes....God forbid we hurt the feelings of 18-21 years olds. They'll be scarred for life.
Click to expand...

Not suggesting anyone would be scarred. Just believe that at the end of the day, college football is better off not having an incentive for coaches to run up the score. If the downside of that is that once every two decades we get to the SEVENTH tie-breaker in the Big IX protocol and Texas misses out in a three-way tie, then I'd take the latter. Either way, we're certainly not curing cancer or creating world peace.
 

Maximus said:
You don't lose by 44 points and have an argument for anything.

Texas beat OU. Logical conclusion.
Click to expand...

And, I'd have a small quibble with your logical conclusion, given that it was OU who administered the 44-point beat down on TT. The same TT team that beat TX. And, yes, OU lost to TX. Dog still chasing his tail, IMO.
 

Using the margin of victory isn't very useful. If a team is down by a lot, but scores some points in garbage time, that makes the game appear close, when it really wasn't. And if a team is running up the score in garbage time, that makes the game seem less close than it really was.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom