A rant on the Big 12 tiebreaker
by Andy--01 on Dec 6, 2008 8:47 AM CST
Email
Print(UPDATE 12/6, 8:46am: bumped back to the top of the page because the conversation in this thread has been really good.)
(moved to Front Page because...well...it's Friday)
Ok, so let me just get it over with that this is not going to be the normal rant you've read the last 6 days. I think the system worked out the right way. Another disclamer: I am a HUGE fan of the computer polls, and believe that the human polls are the reason that the BCS doesn't work (I'll get to that).
No system is perfect, and the college football's various methods of choosing champions are certainly not the exception. I think that most people who are not employed by the BCS organization would probably agree that, all other things being equal, a playoff would be the best way to choose a champion. But, all other things AREN'T equal, and we're not likely to see a playoff anytime soon, despite what P-EBO wants - last I checked, the President doesn't have veto powers over the NCAA.
I have read, quite often, this last week that Texas got hosed: They should be in the Big 12 Championship game instead of Oklahoma. I have to disagree, and the reason is this: Texas lost to a team OU beat, and OU played a considerably tougher schedule. No, it doesn't matter that OU is playing better right now, for the same reason that it DOES matter that OU played a tougher schedule. College football is a short season, but game 1 should matter as much as game 12.
Texas beat Oklahoma who beat Texas Tech who beat Texas. However, the conventional wisdom is that Texas Tech is the weaker of the three teams (despite beating the team people claim is the best) so it should go down to head-to-head between OU and UT. Huh? So, we're going to just ignore all games except the ones between who we think are best? If that's the case, let's put Florida and USC back on top, because Ole Miss and Oregon State aren't good enough to count! Texas Tech had a little trouble with Nevada, a LOT of trouble with Nebraska and didn't destroy Baylor like some thought they would. Isn't the only thing that matters is wins? Isn't that what all these people who want a playoff like to tell you? DECIDE IT ON THE FIELD! Well, Texas Tech did that, to the tune of an 11-1 record, and deserves for their games to count just as much as UT's and OU's games.
So, we need to have some other way of determining who the winner of the division is, since head-to-head doesn't work in this case.
I saw an article comparing the Big 12's rules to SEC/ACC/C-USA rules for cases like this. The SEC eventually uses BCS rankings to determine who the winner is, UNLESS the #2 team is within 5 spots, then they take the head-to-head. Ok, the Big 12's system is arbitrary, but that isn't? The BCS is good for determining a loser, but not a winner? What if the #3 team is .001 spots behind the #2 team, they're just screwed? Why 5 spots, why not 2 spots? Why not 10 spots? What if the #3 team is 5 spots behind and the #2 team is 1 spot behind, if the 5-spot designation is where we draw the line between where the BCS rankings decide it and where they don't... why limit it to only the 2nd team? The same article pointed out that in the Big 12 tiebreakers, if 3 or more teams are tied and one of the steps eliminates a team, it goes to head-to-head. This does seem to make the BCS tiebreaker seem backward, I will admit. But, you have to decide at some point, and why not put your faith in a system that the Big 12 has bought into?
The computers were brought into the system to help avoid voter bias, based on prior years' performances and program reputation. All that should matter is the results on the field, and not how good a team was 10 years ago. In a system like college football, where it is impossible for a team to play even a representative sample of anything more than their own conference, it is important to look at the relative strength of a schedule. If the purpose is to determine which of multiple teams with the same or similar records has had the best season, an unbiased computer look at the opponents they have played is the only way to do it. That is what got Oklahoma to Arrowhead tomorrow. They earned their way, despite their loss to Texas, by playing TCU and Cincinnati when Texas played UTEP and Rice. It's not Texas' fault that Arkansas sucks this year, but them's the breaks.
Oh yeah, and if someone could pass this along to OU, so they know that Missouri isn't disrespecting them, I'd appreciate it.
FanPosts may be posted by any RMN member and may not reflect the views of the management staff of Rock M Nation or SB Nation.
22 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The thing that bugs me about the tiebreaker
is that using the BCS incorporates non-conference schedule into determining who the best team over the conference schedule was. I understand that other conferences do things like this with looking at FCS teams played and such, and even then I’d like to see all other possibilities(point differential, opponent conference record, north opponent conference record in the Big 12’s case, etc.) before taking non-conference schedule into account.
by Transmogrified Tiger on Dec 5, 2008 3:10 PM CST reply actions
You're going to have to do better than that...
I have to disagree, and the reason is this: Texas lost to a team OU beat, and OU played a considerably tougher schedule. No, it doesn’t matter that OU is playing better right now, for the same reason that it DOES matter that OU played a tougher schedule.
How did they play a tougher schedule? I’ll give them their two non-con wins of TCU and Cincy, but they also played an atrocious Washington squad and a terrible Chattanooga team.
In conference play, the Horns played four top 11 teams in a row, a stretch that hadn’t been seen for like fifty years. We were banged up and came within a second from finishing it. This concentration of tough teams was far greater than what any team faced this year.
Out of the triangle of OU, Texas, and Texas Tech, only one did not have a home win. Which one was that?
However, the conventional wisdom is that Texas Tech is the weaker of the three teams (despite beating the team people claim is the best) so it should go down to head-to-head between OU and UT. Huh? So, we’re going to just ignore all games except the ones between who we think are best? If that’s the case, let’s put Florida and USC back on top, because Ole Miss and Oregon State aren’t good enough to count! Texas Tech had a little trouble with Nevada, a LOT of trouble with Nebraska and didn’t destroy Baylor like some thought they would. Isn’t the only thing that matters is wins? Isn’t that what all these people who want a playoff like to tell you? DECIDE IT ON THE FIELD! Well, Texas Tech did that, to the tune of an 11-1 record, and deserves for their games to count just as much as UT’s and OU’s games.
You completely misunderstand the argument. The argument was not about the tiebreaker per se but the RANKINGS of the team, and when two teams are so closely ranked and you’re splitting hairs to separate them, it’s obviously a very good idea to look back to their head to head matchup if they had one. That’s why the SEC tiebreaker, for instance, eliminates the team that is third down the line and doesn’t have a shot at winning the tiebreaker in the case of a three way tie.
That’s where you bringing up Oregon State and Ole Miss is incredibly flawed. Nobody at Texas said that you only should look at the head to head. However, when you look at the entire resume, OU and Texas are in a dead heat and Texas Tech falls to the wayside. When you have to decide between two teams that close, head to head obviously should carry considerable weight since it’s the most objective evidence you have. Did Oregon State have as good a resume as USC? Does Ole Miss outdo Florida in this regard? No they do not. It is therefore a faulty comparison.
I saw an article comparing the Big 12’s rules to SEC/ACC/C-USA rules for cases like this. The SEC eventually uses BCS rankings to determine who the winner is, UNLESS the #2 team is within 5 spots, then they take the head-to-head. Ok, the Big 12’s system is arbitrary, but that isn’t? The BCS is good for determining a loser, but not a winner? What if the #3 team is .001 spots behind the #2 team, they’re just screwed? Why 5 spots, why not 2 spots? Why not 10 spots? What if the #3 team is 5 spots behind and the #2 team is 1 spot behind, if the 5-spot designation is where we draw the line between where the BCS rankings decide it and where they don’t… why limit it to only the 2nd team? The same article pointed out that in the Big 12 tiebreakers, if 3 or more teams are tied and one of the steps eliminates a team, it goes to head-to-head. This does seem to make the BCS tiebreaker seem backward, I will admit. But, you have to decide at some point, and why not put your faith in a system that the Big 12 has bought into?
The logic is simple: Instead of trying to select a “winner,” you eliminate the teams that do not have a shot in a tiebreaker or at a national title. At the very least, it allows for more objective evidence to go in (such as field results). This is where OU fans were simply lying through their teeth: They were trying desperately to make Texas Tech relevant for the sole purpose of bolstering their case, but whenever I or any Texas fan challenged them to argue that, in the case of a three way tie, Texas Tech could emerge ahead of OU and Texas, they were silent. In fact, they often tried to “answer” by pointing to the fact that OU could lose and Tech could win… but this was a terrible response because that obviously was not a three way tie any longer.
In any case, the Big 12 is at fault for relying on a system to exclusively determine a tiebreak (albeit the fifth one) when it was not designed to determine division champions. That shortsightedness is on them.
You forget that the computers are programmed by people, and they all weigh things differently. Whose to say there isn’t “bias” in that? Why don’t the computers weigh road or neutral wins? Why don’t they take in margin of victory? Why don’t they take in “trends” (like if you beat a “hot” team that’s on a big winning streak).
Look man, I know you’re just trying to show your respect for Oklahoma, but don’t do so by showing disrespect to the Longhorns. We also deserved to be there and we DID get hosed. There’s no two ways around it. Furthermore, if you wish to really discuss your thoughts on the matter, you should do some posting and reading on BON, as we have already dealt with all of these arguments before and it’s nothing new.
by TheElusiveShadow on Dec 5, 2008 4:24 PM CST reply actions
Believe me, no disrespect is intended for the Longhorns
they are a GREAT team, and they may, in fact, be the best team in the nation. The comeback in Lubbock was impressive, and losing by only 6 in the biggest game in Tech’s history hardly knocks them down much.
For the record, before I get into anything else, I have no problem with Longhorn fans advocating for their team. It’s what they SHOULD be doing. My rant was more directed at the media who seem to think that this is the evidence they’ve all been waiting for that the system is flawed.
That being said, the decision process shouldn’t be about who we THINK is the best team. It should be about choosing the team who deserves to be there the most based on what they did this season. I can certainly see the logic behind picking Texas. But, what I see as the primary reasons for choosing Texas – they only lost on the road, whereas OU lost at a neutral site, and Tech didn’t seem as dominant as OU and UT did – each have major flaws. In the first case, the same can be said for Tech, so if we’re going to use that as a deciding force, it comes down Tech v Texas – Tech HAS to win that comparison. In the second case, you’re going with a subjective rating of performance, which I believe should be avoided whenever possible. Basically, I can’t see any concrete argument for Texas that can’t also be made for one of the other two teams.
So, let’s look at my main argument: Strength of Schedule. You brought up that Texas played 4 top-11 teams in a row, and I have a problem with that. First of all, it’s a quirk of the schedule. Secondly, it’s more important to look at the final ranking of a team, and not the current ranking. Missouri will be lucky to be a top-20 team, OSU will be lucky to be a top-15 team. Not that it isn’t still impressive, but OU played all the same teams except for Missouri (who they’re playing today – but, obviously, wouldn’t be if Texas had won the tiebreak).
In non-conference, OU played
- TCU (10-2) who beat 1 other ranked team (BYU)
- Cincy (10-2) Big East Champs
Washington (0-11) who really only had 3 close games all year
D-1AA Chattanooga (1-11) who was terrible for D-1AA
Texas played:
Florida Atlantic (6-6)
UTEP (5-7)
Rice (9-3)
Arkansas (5-7)
OU played 2 legitimately tough teams and two high school teams while Texas played 4 solid teams, none of which had a prayer of beating the Texas 2nd team. So, which is the tougher schedule? Texas had 4 games they couldn’t have lost, but against respectable opponents, while OU had 2 risky games and 2 games they should have been embarrassed to schedule. I give it to OU because of the risk involved. That being said, to avoid subjectivity, let the computers decide. And, they did, to the tune of OU getting the higher ranking.
You mentioned the bias inherent in any computer ranking system. You are correct, those systems do favor specific stats over others. But, that’s fine, because there are several of them to balance each other out. The bias that should be avoided, and is prevalent in any human system, is bias towards name recognition, player popularity, past achievements. Bias towards actual statistical achievements on the field is good, of, if not good, certainly not negative. Bias towards style points and past achievements should be avoided at all costs. Computer rankings don’t do that. They can’t do that.
I juggle one handed, do some magic tricks and do the best imitation of myself.
Ben Folds Five
reply
For the record, before I get into anything else, I have no problem with Longhorn fans advocating for their team. It’s what they SHOULD be doing. My rant was more directed at the media who seem to think that this is the evidence they’ve all been waiting for that the system is flawed.
Fair enough. To be fair to the BCS, while it remains a flawed system and I have a huge problem with the knowledge of the voters and lack of transparency, it is not all its fault. The Big 12 is at fault for even trying to use the system as an exclusive tie break in the first place.
It should be about choosing the team who deserves to be there the most based on what they did this season. I can certainly see the logic behind picking Texas. But, what I see as the primary reasons for choosing Texas – they only lost on the road, whereas OU lost at a neutral site, and Tech didn’t seem as dominant as OU and UT did – each have major flaws. In the first case, the same can be said for Tech, so if we’re going to use that as a deciding force, it comes down Tech v Texas – Tech HAS to win that comparison. In the second case, you’re going with a subjective rating of performance, which I believe should be avoided whenever possible. Basically, I can’t see any concrete argument for Texas that can’t also be made for one of the other two teams.
Disagree. Texas played nine straight games because of the Hurricane and we played four straight Top 11 teams. We fell on our eight straight game and our fourth straight Top 11 team on the road after suffering numerous injuries and playing the worst football we possibly could in the first half. We still almost won the game if not for a dropped interception. No team in the entire country can claim they faced a stretch like that. This IS a very solid argument for Texas that cannot be made for anyone, including Tech and OU.
Furthermore, the problem with the computers also stem from their lack of sample size as well. You cannot say that there are “several” of them and say that that lone balances things out (talk to billyzane at BON, as he knows more about the computers than either of us). The computers did give the nod to OU, but then if we just want to go by the computers, then Texas also should be ranked ahead of Florida and Alabama and Texas should remain ahead of Florida even if they win the SEC championship game. The computers are useful but they do miss a lot of important information.
by TheElusiveShadow on Dec 6, 2008 12:08 PM CST up reply actions
Non-Con opponents
So OU’s were 21-26 while Texas’ were 25-23.
Also, Texas did not play a D-1AA team. OU did. I guarantee that UTEP, Florida Atlantic, and Rice demolish the 1-11 in 1AA Chattanooga ball club. That argument is pretty moot, I think.
Also, Cincinnati may have been 10-2, but they only played 6 teams with winning records (going 4-2 in those games) and one 1AA team. TCU played 4 teams with winning records (going 2-2 in those games) and one 1AA team.
what bugs me
is that texas tech if within 5 spots in the rankings on texas. if you are using the logic that it should revert to head-to-head between texas and OU, then you should also figure that you should revert to the head-to-head between tech and texas. of course this makes no sense, which is why this system doesn’t work.
I would agree
I wasn’t defending the system necessarily but the logic of it for the voters.
The rankings are what the voters are responsible for, not a tiebreak. The tiebreak is after the fact. For most, it is simply sound logic that when you have two teams in a dead heat, you go with the one who actually won the game (on a neutral field at that).
That’s why Stoops’ logic was laughably bad. He tried to say you should rank Tech ahead of Texas if you don’t want to rank OU over Texas, which doesn’t hold water if all three teams aren’t in dead heat. Only two were. Ole Miss beat Florida but Florida’s body of work easily overtakes them. You can’t say the same about OU and Texas.
by TheElusiveShadow on Dec 5, 2008 4:53 PM CST up reply actions
He tried to say you should rank Tech ahead of Texas if you don’t want to rank OU over Texas, which doesn’t hold water if all three teams aren’t in dead heat.
But all three South teams WERE in a dead heat. That’s the the breaker went as it did in the first place.
Tech’s relevancy in this situation is what everything hinges upon.
by RPT on Dec 5, 2008 5:34 PM CST up reply actions
I don't understand tech's irrelevancy in the situation
I guess everyone just figures they aren’t as good as texas or oklahoma, but on the field they won the same number of games and beat the team everyone is now saying should be in the big 12 title game. removing tech from the conversation is essentially the same as bcs voting: it is based on style points and considers who has been better in the past.
In a three way tiebreaker
The debate was exclusively between OU and Texas. Not even OU fans could advocate for Tech. That’s not something Texas fans made up; it was a conclusion based on the BCS rankings.
by TheElusiveShadow on Dec 6, 2008 11:57 AM CST up reply actions
what happens when you go by criterion that divisions normally use...like win-loss record?
the win-loss records are identical. i don’t understand why they are completely irrelevant except for the fact that voters are using other factors to decide. i’m not saying they are better than texas or ou…they’re not. but in terms of ways a conference should decide a champion, they have done what everyone else has.
Exactly, the win-loss records are identical and therefore useless!
So you have to look at other things—do you really want a TTU who lost by 44 points, and almost lost to Baylor (seriously TTU should be glad that game was in Lubbock with Harrell’s INT call backs for penalties? If the conversation were between UT and TTU then TTU should go due to the head to head; OU is in the conversation and (along with Baylor) pushed TTU out of it.
By the time you get to the fifth tiebreaker...
pretty much by definition you couldn’t hardly fit a credit card between the two (or three) teams. If I were a Texas fan I wouldn’t want to hear it either, but it would have taken exceptional foresight to have planned for this scenario down to the fifth tiebreaker. Essentially, the Big12 punted by leaving it to the voters, who don’t have a vested interest in the outcome. By the time you get to a three-way tie to determine a champion, few if any distinguishers won’t be arbitrary unless you go with point differential. (I don’t know how often that’s done in college sports, but I sense a bias against point differentials tie-breakers.)
Unfortunately for Texas, one inherent bias voters will pretty much ALWAYS display is that they overweight the most recent information.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
Agreed
Unfortunately for Texas, one inherent bias voters will pretty much ALWAYS display is that they overweight the most recent information.
That is a big problem. There’s also a problem of voters not knowing that certain teams aren’t undefeated anymore. It’s tremendously flawed and it’s not even transparent, which makes it very frustrating.
The problem with point-differential is that it will encourage teams to run up the score more than some already do, and ABC stupidly tried to apply it to this case. If all three teams knew about it, I’m sure Tech, OU, and Texas would have ran up the score a whole lot more in a lot of their games. It’s not a good idea.
When you get to the fifth tiebreaker, somebody is rightfully going to get mad. However, it certainly can be better than this, which uses the BCS exclusively for a purpose it wasn’t intended to decide.
by TheElusiveShadow on Dec 6, 2008 12:00 PM CST up reply actions
Voters
The voters didn’t decide this. The computers did. OU and UT are dead-even in the polls (Texas is third in both; OU is second in one, fourth in the other; under the system, it actually looks like Texas leads by 0.0012 points in the poll calculation). The computers put OU in the title game.
As long as the ultimate goal is a BCS championship, I don’t have a problem with using the BCS rankings as a fifth tiebreaker. Think of the result we could have otherwise. Texas wins a Big 12-specific tiebreaker and beats Missouri in the title game. OU maintains its lead in the computers and goes to the national championship game. That wouldn’t make Texas fans happy, either (I understand that the Horns might jump OU in the computers under that scenario, but I wouldn’t be confident in that).
by Michael Atchison on Dec 6, 2008 12:32 PM CST reply actions
Impossible.
If Texas beat Mizzou again, then not only would Texas get all the votes necessary to go ahead, they’d most likely surprass OU in the computers.
While the computers gave OU the edge, it wasn’t an exceedingly large one, and many people still argue that the coaches and Harris poll voters made bad decisions, and rightly so. If you look at the fact that OU jumped Texas in both polls BEFORE they even played Tech, you can see that the voters still made a huge impact. While Texas regained votes, it still was a great boost for OU to hold on to till the end.
Like I said above, it wasn’t just the computers.
by TheElusiveShadow on Dec 6, 2008 6:44 PM CST up reply actions
Oh, and for the record...
I think that Texas should have been in the Nat’l Championship game vs. Okie for all the same reasons I thought that Okie should have been in the Big 12 Championship game.
They played a tougher schedule than Florida and have a better loss (on the road vs. the current #7 against at home vs. #25).
If the computers would have had their say, it would have been a RRS re-match for all the marbles. And, I would have been rooting heavy for the Longhorns.
I juggle one handed, do some magic tricks and do the best imitation of myself.
Ben Folds Five
Big 12 record
I don’t believe you have responded to Transmogrified Tiger’s excellent point about the Big 12 winner being selected according to its Big 12 record. Sure the same set of computer algorithms used for the BCS could be applied to Big 12 games to give you the Big 12 computer ranking. I have no idea whether that would be OU, Texas, or Tech, but that seems to me to be the way it should be done.
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you're a mile away AND you have their shoes.
He mentioned several options
(point differential, opponent conference record, north opponent conference record in the Big 12’s case, etc.)
Opponent conference record and north opponent conference record would be the same outcome, given that all 3 teams would have played the same teams in the South (except for each other – and they all have the same record). My problem with taking a straight in-conference SOS into account is only that they teams have no control over it. They DO have control over who they schedule in non-con.
However, looking at north opponents W-L (removing Kansas for simplicity’s sake, as they all played KU):
OU: Nebraska (5-3), K-State (2-6), Kansas (4-4)
UT: Missouri (5-3), Colorado (2-6), Kansas (4-4)
Tech: Nebraska (5-3), K-State (2-6), Kansas (4-4)
So, they all have the same North Opponent’s Record of 11-13
I have a bigger problem with point differential for several reasons. First, the BCS took margin of victory out of the equation in an attempt to keep teams from needlessly RUTS. Secondly, it favors offensively-minded teams over defensive teams. If you have two teams, one of which is undefeated, beating every team 10-0, the other is undefeated, beating every team 42-24, which is more dominant? I would argue the defensive-minded team, but the one that allows 24 points/game would get the nod in a M.O.V. scheme.
However, looking at margin of victory (Conference only):
OU: PF – 441 PA – 246 MOV: 195
UT: PF – 329 PA – 180 MOV: 149
TT: PF – 345 PA – 251 MOV: 94
COMMON GAMES:
OU: PF – 321 PA – 183 MOV: 138
UT: PF – 235 PA – 135 MOV: 100
TT: PF – 250 PA – 192 MOV: 58
Either way, OU would be the South’s Representative.
Your suggestion of using the BCS Computers (or a similar algorithm) to look at only the Big 12 games, would be interesting. But, it would be a whole lot of work for that rare instance when more than 2 teams are tied at the top of the standings with only a loss to each other (as this would be the only way it could happen, unless all 6 teams were tied) – not that it’s a valid reason to keep from doing what is the right way of solving this. However, I like that teams can improve their lot by scheduling tougher non-con games, since they have no control over their conference schedule. So, I don’t know why you would want to use the computers to decide it using only conference games if you’re not willing to have computers decide it using all games.
I juggle one handed, do some magic tricks and do the best imitation of myself.
Ben Folds Five
one possible solution to point differential...
…is what they do in Oklahoma high school football…for each game, there’s a cap on point differential. So whether you win 28-3 or 100-3, you would get a +25 (or whatever is decided) for that game. That takes running up the score at least somewhat out of the equation.
If the Big 12 were to do that, and if 25 were the maximum differential, you’d have…
Oklahoma +197 overall, +149 vs common opponents
Texas +131 overall, +82 vs common opponents
Texas Tech +87 overall, +56 vs common opponents
And yep…OU wins.
Rock M Nation
Thrust nunchuk upward!
Better way
I’m not convinced that point differential is a very good stat for all kinds of reasons. The goal, after all, is to beat the opponent, not to score as many points as you can. I was thinking more along the lines of strength of schedule and home/away wins and losses.
I’m with you on giving teams an incentive to schedule better non conference games if only so I will have better games to watch, but I think that’s already taken into account in the national rankings. What we are concerned about here is performance within the league. I don’t believe national polls come into the tournament seeding for basketball, so why should they matter for football? I wish the Big 12 had some way of equalizing strength of conference schedule, but I can’t see a way to do that, so the next best thing is a way to consider conference schedule in tie breakers.
Your idea about teams being able to control their own schedule strengths is true to an extent, but I really wonder whether OU expected TCU and Cincinnati to have epic years when they scheduled them years ago. And I wonder whether UT might have expected to play a better Arkansas team. (Hell, if teams left on their own are going schedule these patsies, let’s just go round robin in the entire Big 12.)
In any case, you have still not addressed the basic question here: why should games outside the Big 12 have any weight in deciding the league championship? Are we looking for the team that performed best in the conference or the team that performed best overall and happens to be in the conference?
The problem is not using computers (which are after all just tools), but what data to consider in the calculations. And again, I say that the Big 12 teams should be judged by the performance within the Big 12 when it comes to deciding the Big 12 champion. I do not think it would be very hard to get those numbers — just run the same statistical analysis after deleting the non Big 12 games from the database. With most DBMS applications that would be easy to do.
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you're a mile away AND you have their shoes.
The only reason I would be in favor of including non-conference games
is because by the time you get down to that point of the tiebreakers, I don’t like the alternatives, and you’ve got to pick someone.
1. You’ve compared them head-to-head against eachother
2. You’ve compared them against their division overall
3. You’ve compared them head-to-head against the other teams in division, in rank of conference finish (and, therefore, difficulty)
4. You’ve compared them against all common conference opponents
Possibilities (as I see them):
Compare them to all north opponents (common or not).
Problem – We’ve basically already done this. If their conference records are the same and their records against their division is the same, their records against the other division will be the same.
Compare point differential.
My basic problem with this boils down to exactly what you said:
The goal, after all, is to beat the opponent, not to score as many points as you can.
Compare Home Records
Problem – typically, teams are going to win at home and lose on the road. Case in point – All 3 teams were undefeated at home
Compare Road Records/Neutral site records
Problem – Pretty sure that OU and UT are the only two teams that play neutral site games within conference (in the South). This benefits them, if you look at the road records, as their toughest game most years is NEVER on the road, so they’re more likely to have no road losses. Comparing neutral site records is the flip side of the same coin
Set up some sort of conference-only computer ranking.
I’m not quite sure why, but this doesn’t really sit that well with me. First off, assuming you’re not going to make this the 2nd tiebreaker, you’re already dealing with teams who are so similar, that there won’t be much difference in ANY of the calculations. It would basically come down to non-division SOS, unless some sort of benefit would be given to getting unlucky enough to play tougher teams on the road vs. at home. I think the biggest reason this doesn’t sit well with me is that it punishes teams through no fault of their own. I guess I would rather use non-con games, at this point, because at least the teams have some say in their own destiny by scheduling tougher teams.
I juggle one handed, do some magic tricks and do the best imitation of myself.
Ben Folds Five
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
