|
Post by Cliff's Notes on Feb 16, 2011 23:51:34 GMT -5
Jesus Christ. "Legends" and "Leaders" was bad enough. But this.... espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/23622/sort/oldest/the-basic-big-ten-division-tiebreakersThis means that the two division winners will be determined not by the five division games [which are equal, equivalent, and fair], but by the eight conference games, which are inconsistent and unequal. So, for example, in The Legends division this year [The Michigan/Michigan St division] each of the six schools plays each other (five games), plus three crossover games. Nebraska gets Penn State (their protected rivalry), plus Wisconsin and Ohio State. Iowa gets Purdue (their protected rivalry), plus Penn State and Indiana. Michigan gets Ohio State (protected), plus Illinois and Purdue. Michigan State gets Indiana (protected), plus Wisconsin and Ohio State. Wisconsin and Ohio State are supposed to be the two contenders, with Penn State a step behind, and then a big drop off to Illinois, and then a bigger dropoff to Purdue and Indiana. Let's say that Nebraska goes 5-0 in division games, but 0-3 in non-division games against two top ten opponents and a top 25 opponent in Penn State, which isn't an unreasonable possibility. Iowa goes 3-2 in division games, losing to Michigan State and Nebraska. But goes 3-0 in non-division games, against one top 25 opponent in Penn State, and two below .500 teams. Under this scenario, Iowa is the division champ. BECAUSE OF A FUCKING UNEQUAL SCHEDULE. Iowa wins the division because they play Purdue and Indiana, while Nebraska is playing Wisconsin and Ohio State. Yes, Michigan is expected to have an easier schedule than Michigan State this year. However, if the teams relative strengths stay consistent, over time, Michigan State will have an easier schedule than Michigan due to their protected rivals (Ohio State vs Indiana). While MSU gets Wisconsin and Ohio State for the next two years, those schools would drop off the following two years, to be replaced by two of these three: Penn State, Illinois, Purdue. It's entirely possible that in 2013-14, MSU gets Indiana, Illinois, and Purdue in their crossovers. Meanwhile, Michigan could get the gauntlet that Nebraska sees this year, by having to play Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Penn State. Mark my words. The biggest frauds in college football, Wisconsin, will benefit from this in the next few years. Barry Alvarez and Wisconsin took every opportunity they could to boast about how there aren't four elite teams in the Big Ten - there are six. But yet, when the chips are down, Wisconsin had an opportunity to protect their rivalry with Iowa and play a top tier crossover opponent. But nope. The Fraudulent Badgers protected their rivalry with Minnesota - the weakest crossover opponent possible. So while Ohio State plays Michigan every year, and Penn State plays Nebraska every year, Wisconsin plays Minnesota. Just flipping great. Count the crossovers as a tiebreaker... fine. But if you include the crossovers to determine the division champ this is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
|
|
|
Post by harlem on Feb 25, 2011 11:10:09 GMT -5
Excellent post. Is the Board at least made of members who are not Big Ten alums? Or is this logic and planning an indication of Big Ten education?
|
|
|
Post by Cliff's Notes on Feb 28, 2011 10:09:05 GMT -5
My guess is GroupThink. The Big Ten is so focused on "all for one" that it gets in the way of logic and common sense.
[/off-topic rant] This is even stupider than the NBA, NHL, and NFL awarding a top 3 seed to a division winner. When you have playoff teams intentionally tanking games so they can play a shitty #3 seed in the first round instead of the fourth seed, the system isn't working. If you want to reward a division winner, fine, let them into the playoffs, but don't give them a higher seed.
Also, my idea for keeping interest late in the season in the NHL and NBA (and with some tweaking, the NFL): Award the 3 division champs in each conference based only on division games, and load up on the division games late in the season.
This helps keep teams from tanking, and gives them a chance to be competitive even late in the season. This makes division games REALLY count twice: once for the division record and standings, and once for the overall record and conference standings.
And again, regardless of how you qualify, the seeds are based on overall records.
|
|
|
Post by pathasst on Mar 4, 2011 11:56:11 GMT -5
For myself, at this time I do not care about rules, just let the New Era Begin: 183 Days until Michigan Football. Go Blue!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anyway, fyi the following is for the SEC and ACC
SEC Rules for tie breakers:
A. TWO-TEAM TIE
1. Head-to-head competition between the two tied teams. 2. Records of the tied teams within the division. 3. Head-to-head competition vs. the team within the division with the best overall record (divisional and non-divisional) Conference record and proceeding through the division. Multiple ties within the division will be broken from first to last. 4. Overall record vs. all common non-divisional opponents. 5. Combined record vs. all common non-divisional teams. 6. Record vs. common non-divisional team with the best overall Conference (divisional and non-divisional) record and proceeding through other common non-divisional teams based on their order of finish within their division. 7. The tied team with the highest ranking in the Bowl Championship Series Standings following the last weekend of regular-season games shall be the divisional representative in the SEC Championship Game.
ACC Tie Breaker Rules: . Two-Team Tie
Head-to-head competition between the two tied teams. Records of the tied teams within the division. Head-to-head competition versus the team within the division with the best overall record (divisional). Conference record and proceeding though the division. Multiple ties within the division broken from first to last. Overall record versus all common non-divisional opponents. Combined record versus all non-divisional teams. Record versus common non-divisional teams based on their order of finish (divisional and non-divisional) and proceeding through other common non-divisional teams based on their order of finish within their division. The tied team with the highest ranking in the Bowl Championship Series Standings following the end of regular season games shall be the divisional representative in the ACC Championship Game. The representative shall be chosen by a draw.
|
|
|
Post by theforty on Mar 8, 2011 10:05:49 GMT -5
My guess are that the conference did not want a team that went 5-0 in division, but 5-3 in conference going to the championship game over a team that went 7-1 in conference, but 4-1 in division.
This rule helps ensure (I think) the highest ranked team from each division meet in the championship game. 5 games is a pretty small total to decide a division winner. Neither the NFL or MLB use divisional records to determine who wins divisions, both have wildcards, and teams have different strengths of schedules in those leagues.
Don't get me wrong - I don't entirely, or even largely, agree with the rule, but I could see where they could be coming from with their thinking.
|
|
|
Post by Cliff's Notes on Mar 8, 2011 12:15:00 GMT -5
Jim Delaney stated up front that "competitive balance" was the most important thing in sorting out divisions and scheduling. If that's the case, then it should logically follow that they want "competitive balance" to be the most important thing in determining the division champs (and therefore conference champ).
If they want to use the full 8 game schedule to determine division winners, the LEAST they could do is use the proposal I laid out earlier (I'm sure I wasn't the first to propose this).
Have two protected cross-divisional opponents. One from the historical upper-tier (Mich-Neb-Iowa / OSU-PSU-Wisc) and one from the historical lower-tier (MSU-Northwestern-Minn / Pur-Ill-Ind).
The remaining two games rotate amongst the other four teams, always getting one upper and one lower tier team.
This at least accounts for a fair schedule from a historical and statistical standpoint. And after 8 or 12 years, they can take a look at how it worked out, and if something shifts regarding competitive balance, they can adjust.
For example, let's say that MSU shows for the next 12 years that they are a clear-cut top 4 school in the Big Ten. They can either be promoted to top tier status and Neb, Mich, or Iowa can be demoted to lower tier. Or, if Penn State falls off again and ZombieJoePa is still coaching, they can switch MSU to the Legends and move Penn State to the Leaders.
|
|
|
Post by theforty on Mar 8, 2011 15:32:55 GMT -5
Jim Delaney stated up front that "competitive balance" was the most important thing in sorting out divisions and scheduling. If that's the case, then it should logically follow that they want "competitive balance" to be the most important thing in determining the division champs (and therefore conference champ). If they want to use the full 8 game schedule to determine division winners, the LEAST they could do is use the proposal I laid out earlier (I'm sure I wasn't the first to propose this). Have two protected cross-divisional opponents. One from the historical upper-tier (Mich-Neb-Iowa / OSU-PSU-Wisc) and one from the historical lower-tier (MSU-Northwestern-Minn / Pur-Ill-Ind). The remaining two games rotate amongst the other four teams, always getting one upper and one lower tier team. This at least accounts for a fair schedule from a historical and statistical standpoint. And after 8 or 12 years, they can take a look at how it worked out, and if something shifts regarding competitive balance, they can adjust. For example, let's say that MSU shows for the next 12 years that they are a clear-cut top 4 school in the Big Ten. They can either be promoted to top tier status and Neb, Mich, or Iowa can be demoted to lower tier. Or, if Penn State falls off again and ZombieJoePa is still coaching, they can switch MSU to the Legends and move Penn State to the Leaders. Well, the NFL and MLB also talk about competitive balance and do not use divisional records for anything. Also, even if the divisions are set up to be even in 2011, there is nothing to say that changes in a given year because a traditional power struggles in one division and/or an non-descript program becomes unexpectedly good in the other division. I don't think they have the schedule set up as well, or as fair, as they should or could. I think that is fair criticism, and I agree with you on your points. But I also think there are some good reasons to use all 8 conference games as opposed to 5.
|
|
|
Post by Cliff's Notes on Mar 9, 2011 9:48:13 GMT -5
Well, the NFL and MLB also talk about competitive balance and do not use divisional records for anything. Also, even if the divisions are set up to be even in 2011, there is nothing to say that changes in a given year because a traditional power struggles in one division and/or an non-descript program becomes unexpectedly good in the other division. I think that "divisions" in pro sports are mostly a joke. I like to think of NCAA conferences as similar to pro sports divisions; and the NCAA as a whole is similar to an entire league, like the NHL. In college, the Conference champ is determined by Conference records (ignore the conference championship game or tournament for a moment). They don't consider overall record when determining the conference champion. In football, Michigan isn't penalized in the Big Ten race for losing to Notre Dame, and Wisconsin isn't given extra credit for beating up 4 crap teams. In basketball, MSU isn't penalized in the Big Ten race for playing UCLA, Kansas, Texas, North Carolina, etc., while Michigan plays only one or two tough non-conference games. I understand it's never going to be perfect. Sometimes you get the luck of the draw regarding playing your tough games at home or away. Sometimes it's the luck of the draw regarding WHEN you play an opponent during the season (for example, the Iowa-MSU football game was only a blowout because of the timing. MSU caught Iowa at the worst time for both teams). But you should do your best to institute a conference scheduling system that at least attempts to be fair. Nebraska getting Ohio State, Penn State, and Wisconsin as their three cross over games this year is indefensible. And over time, the system I mentioned should balance things out. As far as the pros, they should follow colleges more closely. The playoff seeding in the pros should emulate the NCAA basketball tournament. I've mentioned this elsewhere. Win your pro division (based solely on division records) and you qualify for the playoffs. The remaining qualifiers and all seeds are selected based on overall record. Suddenly, division games count twice, and fans are more excited for the February Tuesday evening game between the Wings and Nashville. And teams with a terrible overall record may still have hope by competing within their division. But I also think there are some good reasons to use all 8 conference games as opposed to 5. I agree that there are good reasons to include these games, but at least TRY to make it fair.
|
|
|
Post by Cliff's Notes on Apr 8, 2011 13:47:35 GMT -5
I thought I posted this, but it appears it didn't take. D'Oh. espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/25085/a-look-at-the-2013-14-big-ten-schedulesA few interesting nuggets. First and foremost, a heartfelt Thank You from college football and Big Ten fans to The Big Ten. Week 4 of the college football season had become the biggest wasteland. espn.go.com/ncf/scoreboard?confId=5&seasonYear=2010&seasonType=2&weekNumber=4Now, while most of the Big Ten still gets their MAC/Sun Belt/D-II cupcakes, at least we get a couple of Big Ten games to kick off the season. Last year, the marquee Big Ten game? Ummm... Northwestern-Central Michigan? This year? Ohio State-Wisconsin. Nice. 2014? Not as good, but Michigan-Indiana and Penn State-Minnesota are better than Michigan-Bowling Green and Penn State-Temple. Specifically for Michigan and Michigan State... MSU gets the biggest break by missing Penn State, Ohio State, and Wisconsin in 2013-14. Those should be the toughest three teams in the other division. Meanwhile, Michigan will miss Wisconsin, Illinois, and Purdue. Advantage MSU. However, inexplicably, Michigan has an OPEN date before Michigan State in both 2013 and 2014. Advantage Michigan. As for the competition in the Legends division, Nebraska misses Wisconsin, Ohio State, and Indiana. And, MSU gets a bye before playing Nebraska in 2013. Iowa misses Illinois, Indiana, and Penn State. MSU gets a bye before playing Iowa in 2013. Looking at how the schedule breaks for MSU in 2013, even with UM getting a bye before MSU, the rest of the 2013 schedule sets them up to win the division if they can take advantage of the bye week before Nebraska.
|
|
|
Post by Cliff's Notes on May 31, 2011 8:12:47 GMT -5
So... Jim Tressel.
It looks like Wisconsin is now the favorite in the Leaders division this year.
|
|
|
Post by Cliff's Notes on Sept 28, 2011 13:45:22 GMT -5
The Big Ten regular season kicks off this weekend. And it's a fantastic schedule.
Michigan-Minnesota hopefully won't be much of a contest, and start the day off nicely (for this UM alum, at least). At commercial, switch over to Northwestern-Illinois. Rivalry game, and an Illinois win points to a 6-0 start, while Northwestern desperately needs this win with their next three games looking tough.
Michigan State at Ohio State at 3:30 pm. In spite of each team having a loss and being unranked, it's a huge, huge matchup.
Finally, in Prime Time, Nebraska travels to Wisconsin for their first ever Big Ten game, and what many believe is a preview of the first Big Ten Championship Game. Throw in Notre Dame traveling to Purdue to play under the lights as a commercial look-in.
There's also going to be four baseball playoff games, including the Tigers, so it's a ridiculous sports day.
|
|
|
Post by Cliff's Notes on Oct 19, 2011 9:31:49 GMT -5
As a Michigan alum, I'm embarrassed and tired of all the attention focused on Gholston by UM media and callers and bloggers... The coach and the players (led by Molk) consider it a non-issue. Let it go...
Michigan State dominated the trenches. Our OL looked good against MAC schools like Western, Eastern, and Minnesota, but was exposed against MSU. We're lucky we don't play Penn State or Wisconsin this year.
Our DL (and front seven, for that matter) looks much better than it did last year, but because of depth issues, still can't keep up with the stronger teams, and wears down as the game progresses.
I love the improvement we've seen under Hoke and Mattison, and I fully expect it to continue, however, we may take a step back on the DL with the graduation losses of Van Bergen and Martin.
As for this year, beat Purdue in ten days, and we're 7-1 (3-1), with a challenging November ahead. All four games should be tough, but are winnable. Win a couple of those (especially OSU), and it's a great season for Hoke's first year.
|
|
|
Post by reghartner on Oct 25, 2011 13:19:55 GMT -5
As a Michigan alum, I'm embarrassed and tired of all the attention focused on Gholston by UM media and callers and bloggers... The coach and the players (led by Molk) consider it a non-issue. Let it go... Michigan State dominated the trenches. Our OL looked good against MAC schools like Western, Eastern, and Minnesota, but was exposed against MSU. We're lucky we don't play Penn State or Wisconsin this year. Our DL (and front seven, for that matter) looks much better than it did last year, but because of depth issues, still can't keep up with the stronger teams, and wears down as the game progresses. I love the improvement we've seen under Hoke and Mattison, and I fully expect it to continue, however, we may take a step back on the DL with the graduation losses of Van Bergen and Martin. As for this year, beat Purdue in ten days, and we're 7-1 (3-1), with a challenging November ahead. All four games should be tough, but are winnable. Win a couple of those (especially OSU), and it's a great season for Hoke's first year. When did Minnesota join the MAC?
|
|
|
Post by Cliff's Notes on Nov 10, 2011 16:04:36 GMT -5
I hate to pollute this thread with the Jerry Sandusky scandal, but even with UM-Illinois and MSU-Iowa on at noon, the Nebraska-Penn State game at noon is more of a must-watch for the spectacle. I'm curious to see how ABC/ESPN covers it, how the fans react, if McCreary is on the sideline...
|
|
|
Post by theforty on Nov 10, 2011 16:32:35 GMT -5
Picture taken from the rally to support Paterno:
|
|