+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: College Sports and Conference Realignment (/forum-637.html)
+---- Thread: Head to head vs. Worst Loss (/thread-719019.html)
Pages: 1 2
Head to head vs. Worst Loss - allthatyoucantleavebehind - 12-15-2014 12:31 AM
I just completed finishing all of my post-bowl announcement podcasts (where the national CFB media broke down the OSU/TCU/Baylor debate).
Here's my question for the board.
Which should count more? Head to head or Worst Loss.
For example, Team A beats Team B by 3 points at home. Team A also loses a game to Team C (who is a 7-5 team) by 14 points. Both team A and B end up with identical records--11-1.
Which team is better?
Some people seem to beat the "head to head" drum, asserting that Team A beat Team B and is thus OBVIOUSLY the better team.
Others say...Team B has a much worse loss (losing to a 7-5 team) than Team A (losing to an 11-1 team).
Opinions?
RE: Head to head vs. Worst Loss - Wedge - 12-15-2014 01:04 AM
It's just silly to use "worst loss" as a measuring stick. It means nothing more than a juvenile fan taunt, like, "Ha ha, you lost to [insert name of bad team here]."
A team should get credit for defeating good teams, period. Measure teams with equal records based on their quality wins, not on who had the more laughable slip-up.
I also put very little stock in "quality losses," especially when the team in question has more losses than the team they are being compared to, and even more so when the team in question doesn't have any quality wins. If a 9-3 football team is 0-3 against quality opponents and 9-0 against teams under .500, then the only real evidence in their favor is that they took care of business against bad teams though they never got it done against good teams.
"Quality losses" is an even more irritating concept when applied to basketball than in football, but it never goes away. Every year around the end of February, the talking heads will start singing the praises of a 17-14 hoops team that is something like 1-13 against quality opponents.
RE: Head to head vs. Worst Loss - Zombiewoof - 12-15-2014 01:45 AM
To me, it's not an either/or proposition. You can weigh a team's quality of wins and losses, as well as the head-to-head matchup in the context of the entire schedule. I believe that is why you have a 9-3 Ole Miss, for example, in a New Year's bowl game instead of other teams with 9-3 records. One could point to their blowout loss to Arkansas as evidence that the team "just isn't that good." However, that would ignore that 1) all three losses were to bowl teams, 2) they beat two teams currently in the top ten, including number one Alabama and 3) they beat three conference champions. I think you have to look at each team in the context of their entire schedule rather than isolating either best wins/losses or even a head-to-head meeting.
RE: Head to head vs. Worst Loss - goofus - 12-15-2014 06:03 AM
This is easy if they are in the same conference, there are no divisions or CCG, and its only a 2-way tie.
Head to head determines the conference champion.
A more interesting question would be lets say 11-1 TCU had beat 12-1 conference champ Ohio State, but 11-1 Baylor had beat TCU. Who gets in?
RE: Head to head vs. Worst Loss - Hokie Mark - 12-15-2014 06:43 AM
(12-15-2014 01:04 AM)Wedge Wrote: It's just silly to use "worst loss" as a measuring stick. It means nothing more than a juvenile fan taunt, like, "Ha ha, you lost to [insert name of bad team here]."
A team should get credit for defeating good teams, period. Measure teams with equal records based on their quality wins, not on who had the more laughable slip-up.
I also put very little stock in "quality losses," especially when the team in question has more losses than the team they are being compared to, and even more so when the team in question doesn't have any quality wins. If a 9-3 football team is 0-3 against quality opponents and 9-0 against teams under .500, then the only real evidence in their favor is that they took care of business against bad teams though they never got it done against good teams.
"Quality losses" is an even more irritating concept when applied to basketball than in football, but it never goes away. Every year around the end of February, the talking heads will start singing the praises of a 17-14 hoops team that is something like 1-13 against quality opponents.
+1. Spot on. Bingo. Focus on wins, not on losses!
I'd like to add that a 3-point victory at home, particularly in a high-scoring game, is also of little value because it tells me that the teams were nearly equal and the home team likely would have lost on a neutral field. In the case of TCU vs. Baylor I think you have to weigh BOTH the head-to-head AND the WVU games to evaluate the teams. If someone wants to say that head-to-head is the first tie-breaker and therefore Baylor wins, I couldn't argue with that. TCU could've eliminated this whole discussion by beating Baylor...
RE: Head to head vs. Worst Loss - Hokie Mark - 12-15-2014 06:45 AM
(12-15-2014 06:03 AM)goofus Wrote: This is easy if they are in the same conference, there are no divisions or CCG, and its only a 2-way tie.
Head to head determines the conference champion.
A more interesting question would be lets say 11-1 TCU had beat 12-1 conference champ Ohio State, but 11-1 Baylor had beat TCU. Who gets in?
Why not make it Texas Tech, Texas and Oklahoma? (Why do these things keep happening in the Big XII?)
RE: Head to head vs. Worst Loss - goofus - 12-15-2014 07:04 AM
(12-15-2014 06:45 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:(12-15-2014 06:03 AM)goofus Wrote: This is easy if they are in the same conference, there are no divisions or CCG, and its only a 2-way tie.
Head to head determines the conference champion.
A more interesting question would be lets say 11-1 TCU had beat 12-1 conference champ Ohio State, but 11-1 Baylor had beat TCU. Who gets in?
Why not make it Texas Tech, Texas and Oklahoma? (Why do these things keep happening in the Big XII?)
Because in a 3-way tie, then head to head could not be used as a tie breaker. Nor could they use worst loss.
RE: Head to head vs. Worst Loss - johnbragg - 12-15-2014 07:19 AM
I think it's a case by case basis. Imagine if Baylor had beat TCU by 14 and lost to WVU 61-58 at the last minute. Nobody would be pimping TCU.
but since BU-TCU was a coin-flip game, we look at other comparisons.
RE: Head to head vs. Worst Loss - allthatyoucantleavebehind - 12-15-2014 07:40 AM
I'm with you, johnbragg. It's a case-by-case basis.
Goofus and his "this is easy" comments are exactly why I brought this up. Some have a black-white view of this topic--Head to head trumps all!!! I heard certain analysts decrying over and over again...BUT BAYLOR BEAT TCU!!! But a 3-point win at home means very, very little to me.
I don't think you ever throw OUT the head to head...but it shouldn't be the one measuring stick.
RE: Head to head vs. Worst Loss - quo vadis - 12-15-2014 08:25 AM
(12-15-2014 01:04 AM)Wedge Wrote: It's just silly to use "worst loss" as a measuring stick. It means nothing more than a juvenile fan taunt, like, "Ha ha, you lost to [insert name of bad team here]."
A team should get credit for defeating good teams, period. Measure teams with equal records based on their quality wins, not on who had the more laughable slip-up.
Why? I think that if you beat Alabama, that tells us something about you. But so does losing to Appalachian State.
RE: Head to head vs. Worst Loss - cleburneslim - 12-15-2014 08:34 AM
If you lose head to head to a team with no quality wins doesnt it stand to reason that you are not as good as a team with no quality wins or that you are not a quality win either.
Why have conference play if a win doesnt count why not just play whoever you wish and have a commissioner or a committee decide who is the better team. This is trulely an asinine question.
RE: Head to head vs. Worst Loss - quo vadis - 12-15-2014 09:25 AM
(12-15-2014 08:34 AM)cleburneslim Wrote: If you lose head to head to a team with no quality wins doesnt it stand to reason that you are not as good as a team with no quality wins or that you are not a quality win either.
It is silly to draw major implications from one game. For example, I've been a Los Angeles/St Louis Rams fan my whole life. In 1992, the Rams played the Cowboys in Dallas, and we beat them, even though we were a 14.5 point underdog. And it wasn't a fluke win. We outplayed them and won fair and square, all the stats show that. And the game wasn't end-of-season garbage time. Dallas was fighting for playoff and home-field position.
That year, the Rams were 6-10, the Cowboys were 13-3 and won the Super Bowl. They had maybe the most talented football roster ever assembled. So what can we make of that game? Does it mean the Cowboys weren't as good as the Rams? That would be silly, right?
There is an "any given sunday (or saturday) aspect that is neglected here. You can make too much of the results of a single game.
RE: Head to head vs. Worst Loss - NIU007 - 12-15-2014 09:43 AM
Teams should also get credit for winning on the road. If 2 teams have the same record and 1 team played 7-8 home games and the other played 5-6, that should be a factor too. If home field advantage is 3 points vs. a neutral field, then it's 6 points compared to a road game. Maybe all the top P5 teams played the same number of home games, but it could make a difference for some teams.
RE: Head to head vs. Worst Loss - Dr. Isaly von Yinzer - 12-15-2014 10:09 AM
Only in the bizarro world of college football are things like this even in question.
At literally every other level of football, and at every level of every other sport in this nation, when two teams are tied and Team A has defeated Team B, that is the tiebreaker.
Every. Single. Time.
I am not really a big fan of Baylor or that style of football. I think they are exploiting a bad rule that should've been changed years ago but hasn't been and will not be because it gives certain teams a competitive advantage. I think it is right on the cusp of cheating, I truly do.
However, in this instance, the Bears faithful are absolutely right. TCU has no claim whatsoever to the XII championship and the fact that Bowlsby was conflicted and named them both co-champions is what hosed Baylor as much as anything else. Well, that and BU's absurdly easy out of conference schedule. They were not a victim of the selection committee, they were victims of their own conference's ridiculous procedures in an ill-fated attempt to game the system.
RE: Head to head vs. Worst Loss - Captain Bearcat - 12-15-2014 10:34 AM
(12-15-2014 10:09 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote: Only in the bizarro world of college football are things like this even in question.
At literally every other level of football, and at every level of every other sport in this nation, when two teams are tied and Team A has defeated Team B, that is the tiebreaker.
Every. Single. Time.
This is not true. In high school football in Ohio, they use a strength of schedule + wins formula to determine who gets in the playoff. Head to head is not a factor.
In college football there are huge differences in strength of schedule (same as in high school football). Any method that fails to recognize this is a little ridiculous.
The fact that TCU played a better schedule than Baylor should trump the head-to-head.
RE: Head to head vs. Worst Loss - quo vadis - 12-15-2014 10:37 AM
(12-15-2014 10:34 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:(12-15-2014 10:09 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote: Only in the bizarro world of college football are things like this even in question.
At literally every other level of football, and at every level of every other sport in this nation, when two teams are tied and Team A has defeated Team B, that is the tiebreaker.
Every. Single. Time.
This is not true. In high school football in Ohio, they use a strength of schedule + wins formula to determine who gets in the playoff. Head to head is not a factor.
In college football there are huge differences in strength of schedule (same as in high school football). Any method that fails to recognize this is a little ridiculous.
The fact that TCU played a better schedule than Baylor should trump the head-to-head.
That's a good point. In just about every league where H2H is the tiebreaker, the context is that SOS is very similar, where everyone is basically playing the same schedule.
As you note, in college football, that is far from being the case.
RE: Head to head vs. Worst Loss - bullet - 12-15-2014 11:28 AM
(12-15-2014 01:45 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote: To me, it's not an either/or proposition. You can weigh a team's quality of wins and losses, as well as the head-to-head matchup in the context of the entire schedule. I believe that is why you have a 9-3 Ole Miss, for example, in a New Year's bowl game instead of other teams with 9-3 records. One could point to their blowout loss to Arkansas as evidence that the team "just isn't that good." However, that would ignore that 1) all three losses were to bowl teams, 2) they beat two teams currently in the top ten, including number one Alabama and 3) they beat three conference champions. I think you have to look at each team in the context of their entire schedule rather than isolating either best wins/losses or even a head-to-head meeting.
I see things in shades, not black or white. Head to head should be the tiebreaker for a conference title or an auto bid. But when you have an invitational like the 4 team is that is supposed to be best team, its less important. Head to head by 3 at home just means you won by the home field advantage. And it wasn't a convincing victory. A win by 14 or a win on the road or a neutral site is more convincing. TCU and Baylor had 10 of the same games and 1 FCS opponent. The only real difference was Minnesota and Buffalo, so that was a slight edge to TCU. Both had the same record.
On the 10 common games, TCU usually did better. I believe every Big 12 coach with a vote in the coach's poll voted TCU higher. Statistically, TCU is right behind Baylor in offense and way ahead in defense.
So from a theoretical standpoint, head to head matters more than worst loss, but the mistake is looking at either of those things in a vacuum and assuming all head to head wins are equal.
If it was conference champs only, the head to head winner goes in. In this system, TCU should have been in.
RE: Head to head vs. Worst Loss - cleburneslim - 12-15-2014 11:32 AM
Tcu and baylor played the same round robin conference schedule and finished with the record of one loss with tcus loss coming against baylor. We are not talking about some fluke win but rather two good teams playing on the field and one lost answering the question of which team was the better.
Which is the nature and reason for competition. Should we now judge the olympics based on a body of work rather than what occurred on a given day?
RE: Head to head vs. Worst Loss - bullet - 12-15-2014 11:37 AM
(12-15-2014 11:32 AM)cleburneslim Wrote: Tcu and baylor played the same round robin conference schedule and finished with the record of one loss with tcus loss coming against baylor. We are not talking about some fluke win but rather two good teams playing on the field and one lost answering the question of which team was the better.
Which is the nature and reason for competition. Should we now judge the olympics based on a body of work rather than what occurred on a given day?
If one was clearly better, they would not have had the same record with the same schedule. So again, the question is what context? For a conference champ, I agree with you. For our playoff system, I don't.
RE: Head to head vs. Worst Loss - adcorbett - 12-15-2014 11:45 AM
Head to head works when comparing only two teams. If you want to use a micro level, and choose a conference champion, yes head ot head should be a tie breaker.
If you are ranking teams, and you are ranking say a top 25, where you are trying to iron out the top ten to twelve teams, and specifically the top four, head to head really can't be a factor, because only 2 teams in that comparison had a head to head confrontation. Like with the TCU/Baylor debate: they were not the only two teams involved. The biggest factor was when TCU was ranked AHEAD of FSU. How do you now factor in the head to head? Do you say that TCU must then be dropped behing FSU so that they can also be behind Baylor? Or does Baylor jump in front of TCU, meaning they now get an automatic pass ahead of FSU? Doesn't work.
Now had it come down to TCU vs. Baylor for number 4, sure you can weigh the head to head as a tie breaker. But again, you are now applying an unfair standard to TCU, the fact that their loss was to a team ranked one spot below them, that you are not applying to the other teams with a loss ahead of them, who lost to worst teams. Plus, and this is sort of relevant, the fact that TCU lost to Baylor, while Baylor lost to an inferior team, is actually a point in TCU's favor.
No matter how you look at it, you can give credence to head to head. But it is just a factor: it cannot be an overriding factor in anything other than selecting a conference champion or division champion.