The Dumb Tiebreaker Problem

[AppleCornCy]

These giant conferences have to find a better way to determine who goes to the conference championship games, or else they should just get rid of the conference championship games entirely. We all know about Duke getting into the ACC championship game over Miami based on some weird formula, but it’s even dumber in a couple of the G5 conferences.

The Mountain West’s team selection for the championship game is a joke. All these teams finished 6-2 and it came down to analytics:

UNLV (10-2)
New Mexico (9-3)
San Diego State (9-3)
Boise State (8-4)

So what’s the championship game?

UNLV at Boise State. Because of course.

The MAC’s selection process was also stupid. They had:

Western Michigan (7-1)
Ohio (6-2)
Toledo (6-2)
Miami-Ohio (6-2)

Miami-Ohio lost to both Ohio and Toledo, but Ohio and Toledo didn’t play each other. So who plays Western Michigan in the conference championship game. Well, Miami-Ohio obviously.

Dumb.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

Don't forget 7-5 Duke playing in the ACC game while 10-2 Miami watches on TV.

 

[AllInForISU]

Don't forget 7-5 Duke playing in the ACC game while 10-2 Miami watches on TV.

I actually think this is hilarious, because it could lead to the ACC being out completely of Duke wins.

 

[chuckd4735]

I mean the Duke tiebreaker is not all that hard. They had the same conference record as 5 other teams and their opponents had the highest winning percentage.

 

[HFCS]

I’d be all for sub conferences or divisions or whatever you want to call it. 7 teams every year, the other 2 spots rotate in and out, tiebreakers would make way more sense when the tied teams at least all played head to head.

Big ten in more of a jam with 18 teams but I think it would still work better.

In all honesty we just got lucky with our tie breaker last year. It’s not like we actually played a better season than byu.

 

[HFCS]

I mean the Duke tiebreaker is not all that hard. They had the same conference record as 5 other teams and their opponents had the highest winning percentage.

I agree, especially in a league like Acc where bottom 2/3 is trash. Reward the team who played a tougher draw.

SMU was a total fraud last year (and this year to an extent). They are 4-11 vs current big 12 in last 5 seasons.

 

[KidSilverhair]

Don't forget 7-5 Duke playing in the ACC game while 10-2 Miami watches on TV.

Well, Miami should have just beaten SMU or Louisville, did they ever think of that?

 

[KidSilverhair]

These big conferences are so enamored with all the $$$$ in their eyes with 20 members, but at the same time they’re just terrified of divisions (thanks B1G West). So they find themselves with unbalanced schedules anyway, and then long lists of tiebreakers to determine their CCG teams, because they’ve made it impossible to actually determine the “best” teams through on-field results … which is kind of the whole point, isn’t it?

Getting rid of CCGs won’t solve this problem; it’ll only further cheapen conference championships entirely as the sole focus of a season becomes “we’ve gotta get to the playoff” instead of “let’s win our conference.” You’re still going to have tiebreakers, only to determine your champion instead of the CCG teams (but then again, nobody is going to care who wins the B1G if five teams make the playoff and conference champions don’t get byes).

This current system blows chunks, big time.

All the playoff proponents kept yelling “we need to determine a national champion on the field, instead of with a poll!” - and then the greedy conferences bloated themselves so much that now you can’t determine your conference champion on the field anymore, and instead let tiebreakers and winning percentages decide who gets to go to the playoff.

We need smaller conferences, where at least you play everyone in your division, to determine a true “winner” of something. You don’t like the fact one division is weaker? Rotate your divisions every couple of years. You don’t like the fact you lose rivalries that way? Make up your minds and figure out what’s important to you! Good grief, win your division first, then win the conference … win something before claiming you deserve a shot at the national title. It’s just ridiculous to me that teams that can’t even claim to be the best in their own group say they ought to get a shot at being “national champion.” Again, we’ve gone from “Polls are dumb, let’s decide it on the field” to “The BCS is dumb, what if more than two teams deserve a shot to decide it on the field” to “Results on the field don’t matter that much, let’s use tiebreakers and eye tests to decide who qualifies to decide it on the field.”

 

[twincyties]

I don’t disagree this leaves a lot to be desired and it’s absolutely exacerbated by these enormous conferences, but you’re still going to have tie breaker scenarios even with a full round robin schedule. I don’t think you can avoid it entirely.

 

[KidSilverhair]

I don’t disagree this leaves a lot to be desired and it’s absolutely exacerbated by these enormous conferences, but you’re still going to have tie breaker scenarios even with a full round robin schedule. I don’t think you can avoid it entirely.

But if you play everybody, at least the tiebreakers only apply to a balanced schedule where the teams involved actually faced the same opponents. Unbalanced schedules need tiebreakers because the teams didn’t play equivalent opponents.

I get they’d still be used, but it’s apples to tomatoes.

 

[twincyties]

But if you play everybody, at least the tiebreakers only apply to a balanced schedule where the teams involved actually faced the same opponents. Unbalanced schedules need tiebreakers because the teams didn’t play equivalent opponents.

I get they’d still be used, but it’s apples to tomatoes.

Agree it’s the lesser of the two evils. I’m just saying it’s going to regularly come into play regardless (just like the NFL).

 

[FriendlySpartan]

These giant conferences have to find a better way to determine who goes to the conference championship games, or else they should just get rid of the conference championship games entirely. We all know about Duke getting into the ACC championship game over Miami based on some weird formula, but it’s even dumber in a couple of the G5 conferences.

The Mountain West’s team selection for the championship game is a joke. All these teams finished 6-2 and it came down to analytics:

UNLV (10-2)
New Mexico (9-3)
San Diego State (9-3)
Boise State (8-4)

So what’s the championship game?

UNLV at Boise State. Because of course.

The MAC’s selection process was also stupid. They had:

Western Michigan (7-1)
Ohio (6-2)
Toledo (6-2)
Miami-Ohio (6-2)

Miami-Ohio lost to both Ohio and Toledo, but Ohio and Toledo didn’t play each other. So who plays Western Michigan in the conference championship game. Well, Miami-Ohio obviously.

Dumb.

Couple things:

1. The conference games almost always get it right even in the bigger conferences

2. The ACC and SEC are weird because they only play 8 conference games, once they go to 9 it makes even more sense

3. No one cares how G5 schools determine a champion, the more they take playoff spots while not being competitive the sooner they get cut out from the playoff. No reason a team should get a bye playing a G5 in the first round