Fixing the way the B1G chooses a champion
A B1G Problem:
The Big Ten has a problem this season. Nobody thinks that the winner of the B1G championship game is the best team in the league. Part of this is because the divisions are unbalanced (which will happen because things change). Another part of this is because there are only 9 games for each team in a 14-team conference. Lastly, non-conference games don’t matter. I know College football is not the NFL, but the NFL uses overall record to determine division champs, and division record as a tie-breaker. Penn State lost to Pitt. 8-4 Pitt. That should matter. Instead, the B1G is all, “Why does it even matter that Penn State is lost in a hole?”
The task of determining the “conference champion” must align with determining the “best team in the conference”. This is especially important in a limited-access playoff. The only reason that people are even giving a second B1G team to get in is because none of the other leagues have two clear top tier teams. The goal of every conference should be to have their conference championship game be a de-facto play-in game for the conference championship. The eye test here says that OSU and Michigan are the best teams in the league. Can we construct a system that generates that result?
A possible solution:
Many of these things can be solved by changing how we determine the conference champion, and re-structuring some things a bit.
- Play 10 conference games. Five at home, five on the road. No more uneven home/road splits.
- Structure non-conference play. You must play one team from a P5 conference, and one team from a G5 conference. Practically speaking, this means that each team will have 6 or 7 home games in a season (because P5 teams will want a home-and-home). Notre Dame should be considered as a P5 team since they are ACC adjacent. And it isn’t like you can tell me that they are worse than the dregs of the P5, even when they go through down stretches. Still, to hell with Notre Dame .
- Use overall record as baseline comparison. All 2-way ties are broken with the head to head result. Three (or more) way ties are broken according to the typical B1G tiebreaking procedure. (1. Record against each other. 2. Record within the Conference. 3. Record within the division. 4. Higher CFP ranking.)
- Play division games first, then re-align divisions into a top division (Top 4 teams from East and West) and a bottom division (Bottom 3 teams from East and West). Have teams in the Top Division play all of the other teams in the Top Division that they haven’t played yet.
- Conference championship games is a rematch between the #1 and #2 teams in the top division (at a neutral site).
So a season would look like this:
- Week 1: P5/G5 opponent
- Week 2: G5/P5 opponent
- Week 3: East/West division game 1
- Week 4: East/West division game 2
- Week 5: East/West division game 3
- Week 6: East/West division game 4
- Week 7: East/West division game 5
- Week 8: East/West division game 6
- Week 9: Bye week. Realign divisions
- Week 10: Top/Bottom division game 1 - Played at West Home field
- Week 11: Top/Bottom division game 2 - Played at East Home field
- Week 12: Top/Bottom division game 3 - Played at West Home field
- Week 13: Top/Bottom division game 4 - Played at East Home field (Bottom division repeats week 10 opponent at other team’s field)
- Week 14: Conference Championship (Rematch of #1 vs. #2 in top division at neutral site)
Week 3-8 games are set so that home/away is balanced. Week 10-13 games are set so that home/away is balanced AND teams still know when home/away games are happening (they just don’t know the opponent). Week 9 bye is set so that people can make travel plans for the final 4 weeks. The importance of realignment is that the top teams all skip the dregs of the other division, and still all play each other.
2016 in review
Out of conference
Teams that would have been 2-0:
Teams that would have been 1-1 (and the team that they lost to):
- Penn State (Pitt)
- Indiana (Wake Forest)
- Michigan State (BYU) 2
- Rutgers (Washington)
- Northwestern (Western Michigan)
Teams that would have been 0-2 (and the teams that they lost to):
- Illinois (North Carolina, Western Michigan)
- Purdue (Actual P5 team, Cincinatti) 3
2016 Division standings
These will include out of conference results
East Division
| Team | Record(Div) |
|---|---|
| Ohio St. | 7-1(5-1) |
| Michigan | 7-1(5-1) |
| Penn St. | 6-2(5-1) |
| Indiana | 4-4(3-3) |
| Maryland | 4-4(2-4) |
| Mich St. | 2-6(1-5) |
| Rutgers | 1-7(0-6) |
East Division Entrants to the Top Division are:
1. OSU
2. Michigan
3. PSU
4. Indiana (Over Maryland due to the better division record)
West Division
| Team | Record(Div) |
|---|---|
| Wisconsin | 8-0(6-0) |
| Iowa | 6-2(4-2) |
| Nebraska | 6-2(4-2) |
| Minnesota | 5-3(3-3) |
| Northwestern | 4-4(3-3) |
| Purdue | 1-7(1-5) |
| Illinois | 0-8(0-6) |
West Division Entrants into the Top Division:
1. Wisconsin
2. Iowa
3. Nebraska
4. Minnesota
Top Division finale:
At this point, I no longer care about the bottom division. Someone out of the bunch will get bowl elgible. Michigan State could run the table against Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern, and Purdue and get to bowl elgibility too. In any case, by playing the bottom teams in the opposite division, teams that start slow have a shot at getting to a bowl game. On to the top division. Actual games that were played will only show a score. Games not played will be predicted using S&P+
Week 9 (at West)
- OSU @ Wisconsin (OSU 30-23 OT)
- Michigan @ Iowa (Iowa 14-13)
- PSU @ Nebraska (DNP) PSU is 12th, Nebraska is 34th.
- Indiana @ Minnesota (DNP) Indiana is 48th, Minnesota is 37th.
Week 10 (at East)
- Wisconsin @ Michigan (Michigan 14-7)
- Iowa @ PSU (PSU 41-14)
- Nebraska @ Indiana (Nebraska 27-22)
- Minnesota @ OSU (DNP) Minnesota is 37th, OSU is 3rd.
Week 11 (at West)
- OSU @ Nebraska (62-3, Actual game in C-bus)
- Michigan @ Minnesota (DNP) Michigan is 2nd, Minnesota is 37th.
- PSU @ Wisconsin (PSU 38-31, Actual game in Indianapolis)
- Indiana @ Iowa (DNP) Indiana is 48th, Iowa is 20th.
Week 12 (at East)
- Wisconsin @ Indiana (DNP) Wisconsin is 16th, Indiana is 48th.
- Iowa @ OSU (DNP) Iowa is 20th, OSU is 3rd.
- Nebraska @ Michigan (DNP) Nebraska is 34th, Michigan is 2nd.
- Minnesota @ PSU (PSU 29-26)
Final Standings
| Team | Record |
|---|---|
| Ohio St. | 11-1 |
| Michigan | 10-2 |
| Penn St. | 10-2 |
| Wisconsin | 9-3 |
| Nebraska | 9-3 |
| Iowa | 8-4 |
| Minnesota | 8-4 |
| Indiana | 4-8 |
Michigan wins the tie-breaker based on the head to head result (according to the 2-way tie-breaker procedure the B1G uses). Michigan plays OSU in the B1G championship game. Predict that game at your peril.
December 5th, 2016 at 4:56 PM ^
We won the Wisconsin game on a 50/50 deep ball.
December 5th, 2016 at 5:11 PM ^
Not in the game I was watching. In the game I was watching, it wasn't a jump ball AT ALL.
December 5th, 2016 at 6:14 PM ^
That Darboh TD catch was Dead On per the UFR vernacular, IIRC. The play call was to go to Butt, but Speight saw Darboh break open down the sideline and took the shot. Darboh did not break stride to make the catch, had at least one step on the defender was largely uncontested, and trundled into the endzone almost untouched. Hardly a 50/50 ball.
December 6th, 2016 at 10:03 AM ^
The way Speight throws down field, every throw is a 50/50 ball. How many times did he missed a wide open Darboh?
December 5th, 2016 at 5:10 PM ^
Just look at it again...
Maryland W 14-38
Ohio State W 21-24
@Purdue W 62-24
Iowa W 14-41
@Indiana W 45-31
@Rutgers W 39-0
MSU W 12-45
Wisconsin W 31-38
What are the close games? They put beatings on the lowlifes. They beat the best teams we couldn't.
December 5th, 2016 at 5:38 PM ^
OSU was a fluke. Indiana was a close game -- PSU got a fumble return for a touchdown as Indiana was driving with a chance to tie the game. And they were down three touchdowns to Wisconsin. (Also, I think 39-0 vs. Rutgers counts as a close game... or just further proof that Michigan is exactly 39 points better than PSU).
They gave up 14 points to Maryalnd and 24 to Purdue. Purdue! (That game was close at half, actually).
But, sure, keep pushing this narrative.
December 6th, 2016 at 10:11 AM ^
They beat OSU. It wasn't a fluke. They played them tough and took advantage of the 1 play they needed to win and won. Indiana was a close game fo us too until the snow came. We were lucky the snow didn't show up before we had a 10 point lead. And who cares if they were down three TDs to Wisconsin? They won. The football game is 60 mins long. And Wisconsin is good!
To end the season we scored 13 points, 20 points, and 17 points in regulation, lost 2 out of 3 and you guys want to point fingers about how much of a fraud PSU is for winning 9 straight games.
December 6th, 2016 at 10:34 AM ^
Honestly I'd have rather we only beat Rutgers by 39 points if we could have scored 1 more against OSU and 2 more against Iowa.
Beating the snot of Rutgers is literally meaningless.
December 5th, 2016 at 4:54 PM ^
All that being said, the best thing I read was on yahoo this morning. Get rid of the conference Championship games all together. Go to an 8 team playoff. Let the extra playoff game replace the conference championship games. Conference Champions are named like they used to be. Best Record, then Best Conference Record, then H2H, then more obsure tie breakers. The 5 Conference Champions go to the playoff. Any team close enough to lose the championship in an obscure tie breaker fashion goes to the playoff as an at-large anyways.
This year Ohio State, Alabama, Washington, Oklahoma, and Clemson would have all been named Conference Champions. Then Michigan would get the bid over Penn State and Wisconsin (same record, H2H wins). Colorado gets in. An undefeated Group of 5 can get in at the 8 seed in a year where there is one. So Western is in! Or hell, 4 out of the top 8 are B1G, let em go at each other. They earned it this year.
1st round games are played at Home for 1-8, 2-7, 3-6. The 4-5 game is on a neutral site. You guarantee all conferences get a shot. And enough spots for anyone else who would have a say in things. The fight over the 7/8/9 rankings might be more crowded, but less meaningful. You're fighting to go play Alabama, AT ALABAMA. And the best thing, you don't add another game for most of these teams.
December 6th, 2016 at 10:37 AM ^
Why would games against teams from the ACC and Big XII have anything to do with determining the B1G championship?
I'd rather have best conference record, then head to head. Doing that would still yield PSU as conference champion.
December 5th, 2016 at 9:07 PM ^
PSU also played them both in State College while we played them both on the road.
December 6th, 2016 at 10:44 AM ^
So what? Should all college football be played at neutral locations? PSU had to play us in Ann Arbor.
Location of the games don't matter. PSU beat Iowa and OSU. We didn't. They have a better record in the conference than us. Maybe them losing to us in Ann Arbor is the fluke. I remember years when OSU would crush the B1G and still drop a game to Purdue.
Beat Iowa and we'd have a point. Same conference record, head to head victory, better overall record. But since we lost to Iowa our point is really diminished. We finished 3rd in the division fair and squre.
December 6th, 2016 at 3:35 PM ^
Well, if location doesn't matter, then we have every right to talk trash to PSU, since we destroyed them head-to-head.
December 6th, 2016 at 3:50 PM ^
Of course we can trash talk them. I just don't think our victory over them delegitimizes their claim to the big ten title.
December 5th, 2016 at 3:24 PM ^
You lost me when you said PSU's loss to Pitt should matter.
No, it doesnt. You win a conference championship by having the best record in the conference. Win your games.
Now, is PSU the best team in the conference? No. But that has more to do with teams in the same conference not playing the same league schedule, which is a problem.
December 5th, 2016 at 3:25 PM ^
We know this is a bad idea because Dave Brandon proposed it a few years back
December 5th, 2016 at 3:27 PM ^
I'd rather see leagues get rid of conference championships (they kinda suck now*) and find a way to have everyone play a full league schedule so everyone has the same pool of results. But thats not going to happen, especially with 14 team leagues.
*Often they arent the two best teams, often they are blowouts, and often they ruin a teams chance of making the CFP more than they boost it. The payoff isnt that great anymore with the CFP. Just turn that week into an extra week of play for everyone.
December 5th, 2016 at 3:36 PM ^
I too would like to eliminate the divisions and conference title game. I don't think it's necessary to even have a single champion. Just use the traditional format of teams having a couple of protected rivalry games and the rest of the teams rotating. If 2-3 teams share the title, so be it. The Playoff committee can figure out which team is the best.
I'd rather have two protected rivals and seven rotating opponents than six protected "rivals" and three rotating opponents. I'd also like to compete with all conference teams in the standings, not just the other East teams.
December 5th, 2016 at 4:11 PM ^
December 5th, 2016 at 4:23 PM ^
And the committe has proven that they arent completely concerned with who wins a conference as a way of deciding who the best team is. I think they realize that unbalanced scheduling leads to results that might not reflect everything.
December 5th, 2016 at 4:03 PM ^
December 5th, 2016 at 4:14 PM ^
Yeah but there is way less stability with G5 programs. In 4 years WMU could be a bottom feeder MAC school and Buffalo could be ranked in the CFP rankings. In 4 years Alabama will still probably be a blue chip program and Kansas will still be a basketball school.
December 5th, 2016 at 4:25 PM ^
The conference could set up a B1G/SEC challenge. Parity isn't necessarily bad.
December 5th, 2016 at 4:29 PM ^
We have so little data as it is (12 games). By ignoring non-conference games, you ignore 25% of the available data when it comes to picking the "champion".
December 5th, 2016 at 5:16 PM ^
The NFL irnores 20% of its games when determing division "champions," so college conferences are far off.
December 5th, 2016 at 5:40 PM ^
I assume you mean pre-season games? Thar's hardly the same thing, given that teams aren't trying to win. I promise you, PSU was trying to beat not-a-rival-Pitt.
December 5th, 2016 at 5:33 PM ^
No, 0% of the data deciding a "conference" champion is ignored. Non-conference games have no bearing on the conference standings, nor should they, so nothing is being ignored.
December 5th, 2016 at 4:05 PM ^
This is all very exhausting.
December 5th, 2016 at 4:07 PM ^
Play 10 conference games and eliminate the championship game. You will get the right champion 90% of the time because it will be Michigan or OSU. Occassionally you will get a Wisconsin or PSU if they have a good year. That's much better than this crap.
December 5th, 2016 at 11:51 PM ^
First of all, if Michigan beats OSU and goes on to win the title game, I'm guessing you don't come up with this proposal.
Secondly, this is college football, not the NFL or some wacky European soccer league. Part of the reason college football is great is because it has character, soul, tradition, rivalries, unique matchups in the non-conference and bowl season, etc. The NFL is so bland, generic, boring, and that comes from attempting to put every team on a level playing field due in part to the salary cap but also through scheduling.
Michigan has rivalries with MSU and OSU. Those programs are historically 2 of the top 3 in the B1G (if we exclude PSU and Nebraska as historic B1G schools). That will always place Michigan at a competitive disadvantage compared to other teams that don't have those rivalries but that's college football. I wouldn't want it any other way. Michigan is also at competitive disadvantage by playing in the East, but again I wouldn't want it any other way. I like being part of one of the toughest divisions in college football.
Also, when you are determining the conference champion, non-conference results have no place in the decision. OSU had the league's best non-conference win (at Oklahoma) but that shouldn't factor into the B1G race, nor should PSU's loss at Pitt. It should factor into the playoff race (and did).
If you did factor in non-conference results, it would be a race among teams to schedule the worst possible opponents since only conference games would matter. This would still occur if you mandated a P5 opponent (which is already a B1G rule by the way). Michigan has upcoming home and home series with Notre Dame, UCLA, Virginia Tech, Washington, Texas and Oklahoma. Say goodbye to these games under your system, especially if you move to a 10 game conference schedule.
Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with the existing system. Michigan, PSU and OSU are in the same division, they basically played the same conference schedule. OSU's crossovers were vs. Nebraska, vs. Northwestern and at Wisconsin. Excluding the result of the B1G title game, those teams went a combined 24-12. PSU's crossovers were vs. Iowa, vs. Minnesota and at Purdue (19-17). Michigan's crossovers were vs. Wisconsin, at Iowa and vs. Illinois (20-16).
OSU had the toughest crossovers but that's part of the reason why OSU made the playoff as a non-champion. PSU had the easiest crossovers but only by 1 game. I suppose PSU had the advantage of playing Iowa at home while Michigan had to go on the road, but PSU destroyed Iowa (and would go on to beat Wisconsin on a neutral field). There is no doubt they would have beaten Iowa on the road as well.
OSU and PSU played 6 common opponents, both teams went 6-0 but PSU won the head to head. OSU and Michigan played 6 common opponents, both teams went 6-0 but OSU won the head to head. PSU and Michigan played 7 common opponents, PSU went 7-0 while Michigan went 5-2, which overides Michigan's head to head result. At the end of the day, PSU tied OSU for 1st in the East with a 8-1 record. They also beat OSU head to head and thus earned the spot in the title game.
Is PSU the best team in the B1G? No, and the committee confirmed that by selecting OSU and leaving PSU out. But they 100% deserved to play for the B1G title.
December 6th, 2016 at 10:48 AM ^
Are you not counting games against the third part of the UM, PSU, OSU triumvarite in the common opponents tallies?
December 6th, 2016 at 4:17 PM ^
December 6th, 2016 at 9:07 PM ^
But you are clearly not counting the Michigan vs PSU game and the Michigan vs OSU game in the common opponents records comparison of OSU and PSU. PSU lost to a common opponent they shared with OSU.
December 7th, 2016 at 10:26 AM ^
My mistake. Here are the common opponents between OSU and Michigan:
Rutgers
Indiana
Wisconsin
Penn State
Maryland
Michigan State
Michigan went 6-0. OSU went 5-1.
Common opponents between OSU and PSU:
Rutgers
Indiana
Wisconsin
Maryland
Michigan State
Michigan
OSU went 6-0, PSU went 5-1.
Common opponents between PSU and Michigan:
Rutgers
Indiana
Wisconsin
Maryland
Michigan State
Iowa
Ohio State
PSU went 7-0, Michigan went 5-2
My overall point is that the three teams played virtually the same conference schedule. Perhaps PSU had the advantage of playing MSU and OSU at home but that flips next season when PSU has to play both on the road.
December 5th, 2016 at 7:22 PM ^
We want JUSTICE.
We want THUNDERDOME!
December 5th, 2016 at 9:56 PM ^
Division Jim
Michigan, OSU, Alabama, Oklahoma, USC, Florida State, LSU
Division Delany
Kansas, Rutgers, UConn, NMex St, Purdue, Army, Vanderbilt
December 5th, 2016 at 10:14 PM ^
Championship games do not decide who the best team is, they just decide who won the champtionship game.
A 162 game baseball season doesn't decide who the best baseball team is, it just shows who won the most games.
If you are starting with the premise that it is the job of a system that awards a championship to determine who the best team is, your assumption is flawed. Alabama is the best team this year, period, end of story. That will be true if they lose to Washington, and it will be true if they lose to OSU or Clemson. Using your logic, the perfect system would be to not have any playoffs this year at all, since it is so completely clear to everyone who the best team is.
Part of the glory of sports is that the better team doesn't always win. That isn't a bug, it's a feature. It isn't likely, but UW could beat Alabama, and go on to win the National Championship. That won't make them the best team, it will just make them the National Champion. That's a good thing.
December 6th, 2016 at 7:59 AM ^
December 6th, 2016 at 3:22 PM ^
You are conflating two seperate concepts: who the best team is, and who has demonstrated/accomplished the most.
If we formed a league consisting of the New England Patriots, Michigan, Clemson, and a Pop Warner team, and after the first week of the season the Patriots had beaten the Pop Warner club and Michigan had defeated Clemson, the Patriots would still be the best team. The fact that Michigan's win over Clemson was much more impressive would have nothing to do with it.
December 6th, 2016 at 7:56 AM ^
Since the CFP committee isn't going to AQ the B1G champion anyway, Michigan doesn't need to be in a conference that has a championship game. Since we don't need a B1G championship game, we have no reason to continue affiliating with the Rutger and the PSU. We don't even need for the conference to have an even number of teams, so Purdue's status can be switched to "Probationary Member."
December 6th, 2016 at 9:57 AM ^
PSU should be in the death penalty. Craig James "alledgedly" killed 5 hookers and SMU got it. Child rape is much worse.
December 6th, 2016 at 11:41 AM ^
Agree with JMBlue. The easiest and best way to determine a conf champ is simply to eliminate Divisions. Wisco would have been ranked 4th in B10 in absence of Divisions. OSU and PSU would've played for title. Traditional rivalries can still be maintained, recognizing that it will skew the competitive balance but retain the uniqueness of CFB.
December 6th, 2016 at 3:10 PM ^
I think it is perfectly fine to determine your conference's champion based solely on conference play. Every college sport and conference does it this way for their regular season champion.
The BCS and CFP are recent changes to the game that have blurred the lines of conference importantance. The schedules that UM, PSU, and OSU played were fairly even. UM and PSU played Iowa while OSU played Nebraska. UM and OSU played Wisconsin in the regular season and PSU played them in the championship game. At the end of the day Michigan didn't win the games it should have and has no right to call itself the best team in the conference.
December 7th, 2016 at 1:59 AM ^
If we had IA and OSU at home I think we win. WI on the road would be tough but I think we still win. We would beat PSU on the road. So road vs home games can make a big difference.
December 7th, 2016 at 10:42 AM ^
But it all balances out over time.
This year PSU had MSU and OSU at home, and Michigan on the road. Their toughest crossover was Iowa, which they had at home. Next year, they get Michigan at home but they have to go MSU and OSU. They also have to go to Iowa.
This year Michigan had PSU at home, and MSU and OSU on the raod. Michigan's toughest crossover was Wisconsin, which was at home. Next year, MSU and OSU are at home, PSU and Wisconsin are on the road.
Unfortunately you can't play every game at home. You have to go on the road and win and you are always going to face at least one difficult opponent on the road.
December 7th, 2016 at 11:21 AM ^
But we are not going to have our elite defense next year that we had this season. May be by 2019 when we have a home game against OSU, we will have the talent again to beat them. I'm afraid we could lose to them next season at home and then on the road in 2018.
December 7th, 2016 at 3:12 PM ^
So why even bother with home games? Why not play every game at a neutral site so home field advantage doesn't play a role?
December 7th, 2016 at 1:56 AM ^
would be to expand the playoffs to the top 8 teams. All conference champions would get in with auto bids then the remainder of the teams in the top 8 would get in. Otherwise in a future if a team like PSU has an easier schedule they may have a better record and a B1G conf championship and get in ahead of a stronger team. In 8 game playoff a team like PSU, Michigan and OSU would all be in. Some years it may be 2 or 3 SEC team or 2 or 3 PAC teams.
December 7th, 2016 at 7:03 AM ^
Play a true round robin conference schedule.
Lose the Championship game.
December 7th, 2016 at 2:00 PM ^
You hit the nail on the head in saying that non-conference games don't matter. The CFP and B1G CG selection process are using two different criteria; one is using overall record and the other is using conference record. If you want the conference champion to be the best team by CFP standards, then you need to take the two teams by CFP standards, which is to use the two best teams by overall record. That also eliminates the need for divisions.
The main problem with this is that it incentivises playing a crappy OOC schedule. So, you either take the two highest ranked teams in the CFP or you take OOC schedule into consideration as well either by forcing teams to play equitable schedules or make the tie-breaker SOS.
This is by far the easiest way to fix the problem as it doesn't necessarily affect scheduling and it can be an immediate fix starting next season. Everything else is just using this as an excuse for more conference realignment, which won't do anything to really solve the problem.
Comments