Division Champ based on Divisional Record or Conference Record?

Submitted by FGB on
My automatic assumption is that a division champion is based on one's record against the entire conference, not just your division opponents, so assuming M/OSU are in separate divisions, but remain the last game, I don't understand a lot of the arguments about The Game becoming "meaningless" (in terms of the impact on the conference championship; I'm setting aside issues of tradition, BCS or bowl-tiers).

For the game to be a "meaningless" prelude to a rematch in the championship, both teams would have to have locked up a division going into the final game, which I imagine has hardly ever happened in B10 play previously or in other conferences (i.e. the pre-expansion equivalent of having locked in its spot as B10 champ and winning all tie-breakers to go to the Rose Bowl before the final week is played). A team may lose its final game and still play in a championship game, but that's not the same as knowing that would definitely be the outcome before any final week games are played.

Why would anyone expect that division champs will be based on division record alone? This is an honest question, not meant in a negative tone as it might seem, but a lot of people are operating under this assumption based on their comments, and I don't see any logic for it. Does any conference do this (the Big 12 and SEC do not)? Am I missing something, wouldn't that render nearly half your conference schedule meaningless other than non-conference aspirations (national championship/BCS)?

MGoBoard
Football

caup

September 1st, 2010 at 3:30 PM ^

If the tiebreakers are:

1. Conference record.

2. Division record.

3. Head-to-head result.

4. Overall record (minus D1A games).

Then I can tolerate the Divisions as proposed.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 4275

spumich2

September 1st, 2010 at 3:39 PM ^

You just said the same stupid thing in the front page thread, you're wrong, so I'll say the same thing I said there:

So if UM and Nebraska both had the same conference record and we were 4-1 in the division losing to Iowa, and Nebraska was 4-1 in the division losing to us, you think Nebraska should be going to the BTCG?

 

No, head-to-head trumps divisional record.

Joined: 02/17/2010

MGoPoints: 25

spumich2

September 1st, 2010 at 3:47 PM ^

You're right, sorry, I meant to say if we lost to two teams in our division, say Iowa and Northwestern, and say Nebraska lost to us and a team in the other division, making our divisional record 3-2 and theirs 4-1, but our conference records the same, then we should go instead of Nebraska, with head-to-head trumping divisional record.

Joined: 02/17/2010

MGoPoints: 25

joeyb

September 1st, 2010 at 4:10 PM ^

Which is better?

The team that beat the #2, but lost to #3 and #6

The team that lost to #2 but swept the rest?

You could easily switch the roles. Michigan loses to OSU and Nebraska. Nebraska loses to Iowa and Northwestern. Which team is better? The team with the better division record.

Joined: 10/12/2008

MGoPoints: 16845

winterblue75

September 1st, 2010 at 3:31 PM ^

It makes everything an absolute even playing field. Everyone in a division is playing everyone else, therefore the same 5 division games for everyone. No one can sneak in by not playing  a Michigan or an OSU

Joined: 09/05/2009

MGoPoints: 13273

jmblue

September 1st, 2010 at 3:34 PM ^

I'm pretty sure every conference that has two divisions uses conference records to determine standings.  So no, cross-division games aren't 100% meaningless.  But when you play a cross-division team, you're playing a team that you aren't competing in the standings with, and the head-to-head result won't be used for tiebreaking purposes.  So it ultimately carries less significance than an intradivisional game. 

Joined: 11/07/2008

MGoPoints: 102720

Enjoy Life

September 1st, 2010 at 3:36 PM ^

Here are the SEC tiebreakers (kind of hard to believe that OOC games don't get considered until way down the line).

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.

 

B. THREE (OR MORE) TEAM TIE

  1. (Once the tie has been reduced to two teams, go to the two-team tie-breaker format.)
  2. Combined head-to-head record among the tied teams.
  3. Record of the tied teams within the division.
  4. Head-to-head competition vs. the team within the division with the best overall (divisional and non-divisional) Conference record and proceeding through the division. Multiple ties within the division will be broken from first to last.
  5. Overall record vs. non-division teams.
  6. Combined record vs. all common non-divisional teams.
  7. 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.
  8. 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, unless the second of the tied teams is ranked within five-or-fewer places of the highest ranked tied team. In this case, the head-to-head results of the top two ranked tied teams shall determine the representative in the SEC Championship Game.

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 2658

joeyb

September 1st, 2010 at 3:40 PM ^

I like the idea of:

1. Division + Cross-Division Rival

2. Conference

3. Head-to-head

This makes OSU more important than other cross-division games.

If I had to choose between Conference and Division, there isn't really a choice. It would have to be conference so that beating OSU can knock them out of their division title still.

Joined: 10/12/2008

MGoPoints: 16845

joeyb

September 1st, 2010 at 4:22 PM ^

The way I see it, there are 3 options (Tiebreakers are worth .5 win)

Division first: OSU game is worth 0 wins toward division title

Conference first: OSU game is worth 1 win toward division title as are the other conference games, the game against #2 in division is worth 1.5

Division + Conference: OSU game is worth 1, game against #2 is 1.5, games against other non-division teams are .5

It's the best way to maximize the meaning of the game between OSU vs. other teams. So what if we have a tougher schedule? Isn't that what we are supposed to strive for? Wasn't that the point of adding Nebraska in the first place?

Joined: 10/12/2008

MGoPoints: 16845

joeyb

September 1st, 2010 at 4:29 PM ^

Would anyone be opposed to pairwise? It would only take our OSU game into account against teams that play OSU as well, but it would make winning the OSU game extremely important.

Joined: 10/12/2008

MGoPoints: 16845