Big XII tie breaker

[OldTownPepe]

Bob Bowlsby (remember him?) and the Big XII AD's have actually come up with the idea that, if two teams are tied, the winner of the game between the two tied teams shall be the champion.
Makes me wonder if the idea of overlapping parallel universes is really true.

 

[Mountain Man Hawk]

One True Champion. In all seriousness, I thought I remembered reading last year that Baylor was technically the champion according to the rules in place (only one loss on the season and beat TCU head to head). But then last minute Bowlsby tried tried to call them co-champs in an attempt to get two teams into the playoffs if one of the other leagues would have happened to have an upset in their conference championship. With the benefit of hindsight we know the committee got it right because Baylor lost to Michigan St and Ohio State won the whole thing. But immediately after the selections were made I could understand how the Baylor fans were upset as they only had one loss and their win over TCU was a good resume builder. As long as we have 4 spots for 5 conferences it's always going to be this way.

 

[Mountain Man Hawk]

Forgot to add that even if this clarified tie breaker had been well publicized before last year (so there was zero doubt that the Big 12 champion was Baylor), I really doubt it would have made any difference. The committee was faced with an inherently tough decision (4 spots for 5 conferences) so excluding the only one of the conferences without a clear champion was a convenient cop out to give the committee cover. It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the future. Some years it will probably be obvious which conference should get left out but I bet more times than not there will be no way to do it without pissing off one of the conferences.

 

[Psyclone]

There was no Big 12 tiebreaker. They were named co-champions. What they have done for next year I think is ridiculous. If two teams tie, it won't matter much. But if there are multiple teams tied and you go through all the tiebreakers and it then comes down to a coin flip, it would be a travesty. I'm okay if they use a tie-breaking process for seeding or other post season priorities like bowl game pecking order, but when you play a round robin and there are teams tied at the end, they should be co-champions. In that sense it would be no different than basketball.

 

[JWRHAWK]

There was no Big 12 tiebreaker. They were named co-champions. What they have done this year I think is ridiculous. If two teams tie, it won't matter much. But if there are multiple teams tied and you go through all the tiebreakers and it then comes down to a coin flip, it would be a travesty. I'm okay if they use a tie-breaking process for seeding or other post season priorities like bowl game pecking order, but when you play a round robin and there are teams tied at the end, they should be co-champions. In that sense it would be no different than basketball.

Here is a Joke..."one true champion". I giggle every time I see the Texas Ten run the ad. How will they have us laughing this year?

 

[Lone Clone]

Forgot to add that even if this clarified tie breaker had been well publicized before last year (so there was zero doubt that the Big 12 champion was Baylor), I really doubt it would have made any difference. The committee was faced with an inherently tough decision (4 spots for 5 conferences) so excluding the only one of the conferences without a clear champion was a convenient cop out to give the committee cover. It will be interesting to see how it plays out in the future. Some years it will probably be obvious which conference should get left out but I bet more times than not there will be no way to do it without pissing off one of the conferences.

That's not quite true. There was no formal tie-breaking procedure last year. What they've done now is adopt the formula that was used when the league had 12 teams to determine which teams would play in the championship game if there were a tie for a divisional championship. In '04, for instance, ISU and Colorado tied for the North Division, and CU beat ISU when they played, so CU played in the title game. Until the advent of the four-team national championship thing, there was no reason it was necessary to break a tie.
The "one true champion" slogan is a good one. The teams all play one another. But where Bowlsby erred was backing away from it in order to enhance the chances of TCU getting into the playoff. What the league (Bowlsby) should have done is declare Baylor the champion -- both teams played every team in the league, both had the same record, and Baylor beat TCU. But other than avoid some embarrassment, it wouldn't have made any difference, IMHO. The committee still would have picked tOSU instead. One of flaws of the system (there are several) is that everybody and his brother knew that Florida State wasn't as good as TCU, but the committee couldn't snub the undefeated defending champion.
I'm just glad the league resisted the calls to institute a playoff game. It would be superfluous and it wouldn't guarantee the league a better deal, anyway. In fact, when the Big XII had a championship game and other conferences didn't, it hurt the conference. On a couple of occasions, a Big XII team would have been in the NC race but was upset in the league championship game. This year, if there had been an upset in one of the other conference title games, a Big XII team would have made the four-team playoff.

 

[JWRHAWK]

So in the infinite all encompassing knowledge of the Texas Ten they didn't even think about the need for a tie breaker? Nope, no reason at all to laugh at that.

 

[Psyclone]

What the league (Bowlsby) should have done is declare Baylor the champion -- both teams played every team in the league, both had the same record, and Baylor beat TCU.

I don't think that would have mattered had Bowlsby declared a champion.

What they've done now is adopt the formula that was used when the league had 12 teams to determine which teams would play in the championship game if there were a tie for a divisional championship.

The difference now is that they are using the tiebreaker to determine the "One True Champion". And I have a problem with that. It's as if they are doing that because of the marketing slogan. I think tied teams deserve to share the championship when you play a full round robin. The tiebreakers could be used to identify your playoff candidate, if the committee wants that.

 

[markfromj]

There was and remains no reason for the Big Twelve to have a tie breaker. The playoff committee can choose teams that were not conference champions. So declaring a champion had no implications.

 

[Cougar63]

There was and remains no reason for the Big Twelve to have a tie breaker.

Having someone claim "champion" is a resume builder for the playoffs, so it would help to have 'one true champion'.

The playoff committee can choose teams that were not conference champions. So declaring a champion had no implications.

This is partially true. Yes, they can choose non-conference Champions. Doesn't mean they will. Some circumstances (LSU/Alabama, for instance) they would, but it helps to be called a conference Champion. If OSU didn't win the B1G, we might be looking at an Oregon NC because Baylor would've been curb stomped like they were, and I don't think that TCU would've beaten Alabama.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I don't think that would have mattered had Bowlsby declared a champion.

The difference now is that they are using the tiebreaker to determine the "One True Champion". And I have a problem with that. It's as if they are doing that because of the marketing slogan. I think tied teams deserve to share the championship when you play a full round robin. The tiebreakers could be used to identify your playoff candidate, if the committee wants that.

A round robin where one team beat the other. Baylor deserved it. Michigan deserved it.