Search
Log in
Register
Teams
Teams
Fan Sites
Forums
Shows
College
College Football News
College Football Player Rankings
College Football Rankings
College Football Playoff
College Basketball News
Women's Sports
NIL
NIL News
NIL Valuation
NIL Deals
NIL Deal Tracker
Sports Business
Transfer Portal
Transfer Portal News
NCAA Transfer Portal
Transfer Portal Rankings
Transfer Portal Team Rankings
Recruiting
Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Database
Team Rankings
Player Rankings
Industry Comparison
Commitments
Recruiting Prediction Machine
High School
High School News
Schools
Rankings
Scores
Draft
NFL Draft
NFL Draft News
Draft By Stars
College Draft History
College Draft Totals
NBA Draft
NBA Draft News
Pro
NFL
NASCAR
NBA
Culture
Sports Betting
About
About
On3 App
Advertise
Press
FAQ
Contact
Get a profile. Be recruited.
New posts
Menu
Install the app
Install
On3 Football:
Year 1 at Michigan for Bryce Underwood: Pressure to win or a freeroll?
On3 Football:
Ranking the top 10 defensive coordinators in college football
On3 NIL:
College Sports Commission updates guidance allowing NIL collectives to pay athletes
Kentucky Wildcats Football:
Mark Stoops confident in where Kentucky stands with revenue share
On3 Football:
Kenny Dillingham rips lack of 'passion' at Arizona State practice: 'It was a bad day'
Reply to thread
Forums
West Virginia
Mountaineer Message Board
Mitch Vingle: Big 12 meetings and other notes
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="GoWVU" data-source="post: 129292112" data-attributes="member: 1457561"><p>I think the main reason for that is that most fans are as yet unaware of how disastrous the tiebreaker they selected actually is. Other than the reddit posts linked in one ESPN column, I haven't seen it discussed. Were it more widely-publicized, I think you'd see more objections and outrage.</p><p>The trouble is the new tiebreaker seems designed to achieve a specific result using what actually <em>did</em> happen in 2008. That is a major problem, especially when remembering that the party who felt "screwed" in 2008 is A) the conference's unquestioned power broker and B) absolutely wrong about saying they got "screwed" that season.</p><p>You're dead on with this. I never wanted a conference-championship game, and the evidence so far in the leagues that have one shows roughly twice as many examples of teams who were knocked out of national-championship scenarios by the conference-title games as there were teams who played their way into one because of it.</p><p>There are several more equitable tiebreaking scenarios that could be adopted, all of which would be light years more fair than what they're about to adopt. These are my 2 favorites, although they're not the only ones:</p><p></p><p>1) Use the "points comparison" tiebreaker they're about to adopt the <strong>proper</strong> way, i.e. the best point differential among the 3 tied teams is declared the winner--rather than the worst differential being eliminated as they're going to do. When used correctly, this method neutralizes 2 problems in the current one...it is both more simple (one step instead of two), and it also eliminates any possibility of the team who stands to win needing to shave points in order to prevail in the tiebreaker.</p><p></p><p>2) Decide between the 3 tied teams based on which one played the strongest <em>non-conference</em> schedule. Now you could argue that using non-conference games to break a tie for purposes of conference play is contradictory, and that claim does have some merit. However, since the overarching concern in all this seems to be that we as a conference want to send the strongest overall team into a potential playoff scenario, then rewarding the tied team which also tested itself more strenuously in out-of-conference play seems geared to achieving that goal.</p><p></p><p>Certainly there are other tiebreaker methods as well, e.g. if one of the 3 tied teams had to play both of the games against the other 2 tied teams on the road then they would be declared the winner...and so forth.</p><p></p><p>Sorry I took so long to reply. Your question was a good one, but it also demanded a lengthy response and I did not have the time to do so until today.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="GoWVU, post: 129292112, member: 1457561"] I think the main reason for that is that most fans are as yet unaware of how disastrous the tiebreaker they selected actually is. Other than the reddit posts linked in one ESPN column, I haven't seen it discussed. Were it more widely-publicized, I think you'd see more objections and outrage. The trouble is the new tiebreaker seems designed to achieve a specific result using what actually [i]did[/i] happen in 2008. That is a major problem, especially when remembering that the party who felt "screwed" in 2008 is A) the conference's unquestioned power broker and B) absolutely wrong about saying they got "screwed" that season. You're dead on with this. I never wanted a conference-championship game, and the evidence so far in the leagues that have one shows roughly twice as many examples of teams who were knocked out of national-championship scenarios by the conference-title games as there were teams who played their way into one because of it. There are several more equitable tiebreaking scenarios that could be adopted, all of which would be light years more fair than what they're about to adopt. These are my 2 favorites, although they're not the only ones: 1) Use the "points comparison" tiebreaker they're about to adopt the [b]proper[/b] way, i.e. the best point differential among the 3 tied teams is declared the winner--rather than the worst differential being eliminated as they're going to do. When used correctly, this method neutralizes 2 problems in the current one...it is both more simple (one step instead of two), and it also eliminates any possibility of the team who stands to win needing to shave points in order to prevail in the tiebreaker. 2) Decide between the 3 tied teams based on which one played the strongest [i]non-conference[/i] schedule. Now you could argue that using non-conference games to break a tie for purposes of conference play is contradictory, and that claim does have some merit. However, since the overarching concern in all this seems to be that we as a conference want to send the strongest overall team into a potential playoff scenario, then rewarding the tied team which also tested itself more strenuously in out-of-conference play seems geared to achieving that goal. Certainly there are other tiebreaker methods as well, e.g. if one of the 3 tied teams had to play both of the games against the other 2 tied teams on the road then they would be declared the winner...and so forth. Sorry I took so long to reply. Your question was a good one, but it also demanded a lengthy response and I did not have the time to do so until today. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Post reply
Forums
West Virginia
Mountaineer Message Board
Mitch Vingle: Big 12 meetings and other notes
Top
Bottom