I don't know why it needs to be changed. It was certainly unclear, as many of us believed that ANY votes in the top 25 would simply give you the award, but Jonathan's explanation shows that it is actually a minuscule advantage in one of numerous components that go into the determination.

The reality is that "seeding" teams is an inexact science fraught with potential for disagreement or error... and that the fair thing to do is to take numerous sources and average them somehow... and that seems to generally be what the conference did.

Now that everyone has seen the scenario play out, there should be no confusion about how it will work next time. If you don't think it is fair to do it this way, I understand... but that is a different argument. I don't know why Marshall should want out of CUSA SIMPLY because they didn't understand how the rules would be applied. Despite comments to the contrary, I don't see that the conference "changed" their formula at all.

(12-06-2013 05:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I don't know why it needs to be changed. It was certainly unclear, as many of us believed that ANY votes in the top 25 would simply give you the award, but Jonathan's explanation shows that it is actually a minuscule advantage in one of numerous components that go into the determination.

The reality is that "seeding" teams is an inexact science fraught with potential for disagreement or error... and that the fair thing to do is to take numerous sources and average them somehow... and that seems to generally be what the conference did.

Now that everyone has seen the scenario play out, there should be no confusion about how it will work next time. If you don't think it is fair to do it this way, I understand... but that is a different argument. I don't know why Marshall should want out of CUSA SIMPLY because they didn't understand how the rules would be applied. Despite comments to the contrary, I don't see that the conference "changed" their formula at all.

+1. The problem was the ambiguity; not only in CUSA's communications, but in the general understanding of how the BCS rankings work. Specifically (and Marshall supporters refuse to recognize this even now), there is NO BCS ranking outside the Top 25 and, consequently, any unranked team that collects votes from the human polls will see a negligeable impact from those polls (as opposed to the one-third weight given to those earning enough votes to rank in the Top 25).

(12-06-2013 05:15 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Clearly the conference needs to revisit this.

There are some Marshall fans that will redouble their efforts to get Marshall out of CUSA because of this incident. In reality, they should be redoubling those efforts for different reasons.

But, again, the conference needs to look at tie-breakers in terms of what behavior it wants to reward.

Yes indeed. Once you get past rudimentary elements like head-to-head and common opponents, they need to go something that is non-manipulable, easy to understand, doesn't pretend to achieve some illusory accuracy, and doesn't encourage undesirable actions on or off the field -- e.g., a standard that is either historical or random.

1. Conference record
2. Overall record
3. Head to head
4. Maybe record against common opponents, or
5. Maybe even point differential against common opponents; at that point you've pretty much exhausted any reasonable quality measures, and whatever you do is going to be arbitrary so it might as well be quick and decisive, so
6. Longest time since hosting, or if neither have hosted,
7. Longest time since appearing in championship game, or if neither has ever appeared,
8. Longest time since winning a championship in any D-1 conference, or
9. Coin toss

Here's a historical tiebreaker that I like: the division that won the championship the previous year hosts it the current year -- even if it's a different team. The notion is that the host team is defending the title on behalf of the division.

The inspiration comes from the America's Cup, where the defending nation is the host, regardless of which club from that nation advances to the final. In fact, the press would often (or used) to refer to the Nth running of the America's Cup as "the Nth defense", which sounds really cool.

Some 20+ years ago, I wrote a letter to the Commissioner of Baseball proposing an America's Cup-style scheme for MLB, back when the World Series was still alternating year-to-year between the two leagues and before the whole All-Star thing was being talked about. I thought the idea of a team defending (or challenging) on behalf of its league was kinda cool and one that would appeal to fans. I never got a reply and did not really expect one.

At one point I think the Commander-in-Chief's Trophy (for the winner of the season series between the service academies) had a variation on this theme: if the season series ended in a tie, the defender retained the trophy, because the challenger had failed to take it.

As you can tell, in general I think the concept of challenger versus defender is just plain cool. But to be clear, in this case I'm only suggesting it as an nth-level tiebreaker.

Ultimately I would prefer a historical criterion to a random one, for this reason: it is no less arbitrary, but it is inherently more interesting. But either is preferable to junk science.

(12-06-2013 07:36 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Here's a historical tiebreaker that I like: the division that won the championship the previous year hosts it the current year -- even if it's a different team. The notion is that the host team is defending the title on behalf of the division.

The inspiration comes from the America's Cup, where the defending nation is the host, regardless of which club from that nation advances to the final. In fact, the press would often (or used) to refer to the Nth running of the America's Cup as "the Nth defense", which sounds really cool.

Some 20+ years ago, I wrote a letter to the Commissioner of Baseball proposing an America's Cup-style scheme for MLB, back when the World Series was still alternating year-to-year between the two leagues and before the whole All-Star thing was being talked about. I thought the idea of a team defending (or challenging) on behalf of its league was kinda cool and one that would appeal to fans. I never got a reply and did not really expect one.

At one point I think the Commander-in-Chief's Trophy (for the winner of the season series between the service academies) had a variation on this theme: if the season series ended in a tie, the defender retained the trophy, because the challenger had failed to take it.

As you can tell, in general I think the concept of challenger versus defender is just plain cool. But to be clear, in this case I'm only suggesting it as an nth-level tiebreaker.

Ultimately I would prefer a historical criterion to a random one, for this reason: it is no less arbitrary, but it is inherently more interesting. But either is preferable to junk science.

I like that. It's very clear and definite.

(12-06-2013 07:36 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Here's a historical tiebreaker that I like: the division that won the championship the previous year hosts it the current year -- even if it's a different team. The notion is that the host team is defending the title on behalf of the division.

The inspiration comes from the America's Cup, where the defending nation is the host, regardless of which club from that nation advances to the final. In fact, the press would often (or used) to refer to the Nth running of the America's Cup as "the Nth defense", which sounds really cool.

Some 20+ years ago, I wrote a letter to the Commissioner of Baseball proposing an America's Cup-style scheme for MLB, back when the World Series was still alternating year-to-year between the two leagues and before the whole All-Star thing was being talked about. I thought the idea of a team defending (or challenging) on behalf of its league was kinda cool and one that would appeal to fans. I never got a reply and did not really expect one.

At one point I think the Commander-in-Chief's Trophy (for the winner of the season series between the service academies) had a variation on this theme: if the season series ended in a tie, the defender retained the trophy, because the challenger had failed to take it.

As you can tell, in general I think the concept of challenger versus defender is just plain cool. But to be clear, in this case I'm only suggesting it as an nth-level tiebreaker.

Ultimately I would prefer a historical criterion to a random one, for this reason: it is no less arbitrary, but it is inherently more interesting. But either is preferable to junk science.

I like the idea.

(12-06-2013 05:34 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 05:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I don't know why it needs to be changed. It was certainly unclear, as many of us believed that ANY votes in the top 25 would simply give you the award, but Jonathan's explanation shows that it is actually a minuscule advantage in one of numerous components that go into the determination.

The reality is that "seeding" teams is an inexact science fraught with potential for disagreement or error... and that the fair thing to do is to take numerous sources and average them somehow... and that seems to generally be what the conference did.

Now that everyone has seen the scenario play out, there should be no confusion about how it will work next time. If you don't think it is fair to do it this way, I understand... but that is a different argument. I don't know why Marshall should want out of CUSA SIMPLY because they didn't understand how the rules would be applied. Despite comments to the contrary, I don't see that the conference "changed" their formula at all.

+1. The problem was the ambiguity; not only in CUSA's communications, but in the general understanding of how the BCS rankings work. Specifically (and Marshall supporters refuse to recognize this even now), there is NO BCS ranking outside the Top 25 and, consequently, any unranked team that collects votes from the human polls will see a negligeable impact from those polls (as opposed to the one-third weight given to those earning enough votes to rank in the Top 25).

Was it really ambiguous? Or did folks just not read what CUSA put out about it? The following seems pretty clear to me.

From 11/25 release regarding scenarios:

"Regarding the host of the Conference USA Football Championship game –
East Carolina and Marshall currently each control their destiny to win the East Division
Rice currently controls its destiny to win the West Division
Based on the teams controlling their destinies to win the divisions, BCS ranking (i.e. average computer ranking) would be used to determine host, as Rice does not play East Carolina or Marshall in the regular season."

In the end, of course, they modified that to Marshall's benefit by including the human polls in some fashion. It just wasn't enough to change the outcome.

(12-06-2013 07:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  at that point you've pretty much exhausted any reasonable quality measures, and whatever you do is going to be arbitrary so it might as well be quick and decisive, so
6. Longest time since hosting, or if neither have hosted,
7. Longest time since appearing in championship game, or if neither has ever appeared,
8. Longest time since winning a championship in any D-1 conference, or

I don't think those criteria make sense in this particular conference, in that it tends to reward weaker teams and make teams that feel superior and have a sense of entitlement feel like they were wrongded, and thus encourage them to leave. I hope that Rice feels it's in that category (or eventually comes to that way of thinking), by the way, and would rather host the game in that case.

To wit, for this conference, I think this suggestion makes a lot more sense...

(12-06-2013 07:36 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Here's a historical tiebreaker that I like: the division that won the championship the previous year hosts it the current year -- even if it's a different team. The notion is that the host team is defending the title on behalf of the division.

(12-07-2013 12:20 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 07:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  at that point you've pretty much exhausted any reasonable quality measures, and whatever you do is going to be arbitrary so it might as well be quick and decisive, so
6. Longest time since hosting, or if neither have hosted,
7. Longest time since appearing in championship game, or if neither has ever appeared,
8. Longest time since winning a championship in any D-1 conference, or

I don't think those criteria make sense in this particular conference, in that it tends to reward weaker teams and make teams that feel superior and have a sense of entitlement feel like they were wrongded, and thus encourage them to leave. I hope that Rice feels it's in that category (or eventually comes to that way of thinking), by the way, and would rather host the game in that case.

To wit, for this conference, I think this suggestion makes a lot more sense...

(12-06-2013 07:36 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Here's a historical tiebreaker that I like: the division that won the championship the previous year hosts it the current year -- even if it's a different team. The notion is that the host team is defending the title on behalf of the division.

#6, #7 and #8 appeal to an old-fashioned sense of sportsmanship. In fact to get to that point, there was a tie, and the whole 'entitlement' mentality has no real basis, other than the fact that all fans tend to feel their team 'deserves' something or deserves 'better'. If the team were really better, there wouldn't have been a tie in the first place.

Put another way, if Team X, lets call them Texas, has won 4 of the last 5 conference titles, and then ends up in a 3-way tie for first, does anyone in the conference really want to see them in the champion's bowl again (other than Texas fans who, at least in a vocal minority, believe it to be their birthright to be conference champs (at least starting in 1963).

So I have no problem with 6, 7 or 8. But I do like George's suggestion as well.

As to wanting out of the conference, well everyone wants the best position for there team, and anyone who could join somewhere and get a share of the P5 TV money is going to do so immediately.

However, at this point, teams that are not in P5 conferences are not there for a reason. The only benefit Marshall gets from going back to the MAC is better travel costs (and that might be enough reason for them to go, but they wouldn't get any more respect there).

But if another, better conference really wanted them, they'd be out of CUSA already.

I think the Big 12 has seen what happens when you let a team that feels entitled call the shots (i.e. Nebraska, Missouri and A&M are all gone).

(12-06-2013 07:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  1. Conference record
2. Overall record
3. Head to head
4. Maybe record against common opponents, or
5. Maybe even point differential against common opponents; at that point you've pretty much exhausted any reasonable quality measures, and whatever you do is going to be arbitrary so it might as well be quick and decisive, so
6. Longest time since hosting, or if neither have hosted,
7. Longest time since appearing in championship game, or if neither has ever appeared,
8. Longest time since winning a championship in any D-1 conference, or
9. Coin toss

I would eliminate 2, 6, 7, and 8. I would eliminate 2 because it favors the team with the weaker SOS in OOC games.

(12-07-2013 01:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 07:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  1. Conference record
2. Overall record
3. Head to head
4. Maybe record against common opponents, or
5. Maybe even point differential against common opponents; at that point you've pretty much exhausted any reasonable quality measures, and whatever you do is going to be arbitrary so it might as well be quick and decisive, so
6. Longest time since hosting, or if neither have hosted,
7. Longest time since appearing in championship game, or if neither has ever appeared,
8. Longest time since winning a championship in any D-1 conference, or
9. Coin toss

I would eliminate 2, 6, 7, and 8. I would eliminate 2 because it favors the team with the weaker SOS in OOC games.

Good point on #2. I do think one criteria that should be there or take the place of #2 is that any team ranked in the top-25 in the official BCS rankings should host (the higher of the two, if both are ranked).

The real point is that in this conference it really doesn't matter. Our winner isn't going to the BCS, and both winner and loser are going to end up in second or third tier bowls regardless. So all we really need is a system that is definite. There's really not enough at stake for fairness to be a bigger concern than just getting it done with a minimum of fuss and indecision. You could even do what baseball used to do with the World Series, one division one year and the other the next. Too bad we don't have a mid-season all-star game, LOL.

I like George's idea because it is straightforward. And it actually gives all of us at least a slight rooting interest in the game each year, hoping the west team wins if we're not in it, so that we could host next year if we won.

(12-07-2013 02:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The real point is that in this conference it really doesn't matter. Our winner isn't going to the BCS, and both winner and loser are going to end up in second or third tier bowls regardless. So all we really need is a system that is definite.

If Northern Illinois can make an odd BCS game, I don't see why one of this motley group of schools can't. But, at least the illusion of that hope could provide some benefit. And, unlike the current criteria, it is also definite, and could provide some actual benefit if you were to say a ranked (actual ranked top-25) BCS team.

(12-07-2013 02:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I like George's idea because it is straightforward. And it actually gives all of us at least a slight rooting interest in the game each year, hoping the west team wins if we're not in it, so that we could host next year if we won.

Those are good additional reasons to use it. I like the idea, a lot.

(12-07-2013 11:09 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(12-07-2013 02:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The real point is that in this conference it really doesn't matter. Our winner isn't going to the BCS, and both winner and loser are going to end up in second or third tier bowls regardless. So all we really need is a system that is definite.

If Northern Illinois can make an odd BCS game, I don't see why one of this motley group of schools can't. But, at least the illusion of that hope could provide some benefit. And, unlike the current criteria, it is also definite, and could provide some actual benefit if you were to say a ranked (actual ranked top-25) BCS team.

(12-07-2013 02:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I like George's idea because it is straightforward. And it actually gives all of us at least a slight rooting interest in the game each year, hoping the west team wins if we're not in it, so that we could host next year if we won.

Those are good additional reasons to use it. I like the idea, a lot.

I like Owl69's list, with the deletions I suggested. Decided by each team's on the field performance as far as possible, coin flip as the final step.

(12-07-2013 11:09 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(12-07-2013 02:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The real point is that in this conference it really doesn't matter. Our winner isn't going to the BCS, and both winner and loser are going to end up in second or third tier bowls regardless. So all we really need is a system that is definite.

If Northern Illinois can make an odd BCS game, I don't see why one of this motley group of schools can't. But, at least the illusion of that hope could provide some benefit. And, unlike the current criteria, it is also definite, and could provide some actual benefit if you were to say a ranked (actual ranked top-25) BCS team.

(12-07-2013 02:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I like George's idea because it is straightforward. And it actually gives all of us at least a slight rooting interest in the game each year, hoping the west team wins if we're not in it, so that we could host next year if we won.

Those are good additional reasons to use it. I like the idea, a lot.

We've had one team with a BCS shot--UH in 2011--and they lost--at home. If you can't go on the road and win against anybody in this league, then you don't belong in a BCS bowl. And there's no reason to presume that you'd have to go on the road. If you're good enough to be talking BCS, odds are that you were very likely good enough to win the league last year too, which gets you the home game. Yeah, there are teams that come out of nowhere--but Auburns don't happen often.

(12-06-2013 08:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-06-2013 07:36 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Here's a historical tiebreaker that I like: the division that won the championship the previous year hosts it the current year -- even if it's a different team. The notion is that the host team is defending the title on behalf of the division.

The inspiration comes from the America's Cup, where the defending nation is the host, regardless of which club from that nation advances to the final. In fact, the press would often (or used) to refer to the Nth running of the America's Cup as "the Nth defense", which sounds really cool.

Some 20+ years ago, I wrote a letter to the Commissioner of Baseball proposing an America's Cup-style scheme for MLB, back when the World Series was still alternating year-to-year between the two leagues and before the whole All-Star thing was being talked about. I thought the idea of a team defending (or challenging) on behalf of its league was kinda cool and one that would appeal to fans. I never got a reply and did not really expect one.

At one point I think the Commander-in-Chief's Trophy (for the winner of the season series between the service academies) had a variation on this theme: if the season series ended in a tie, the defender retained the trophy, because the challenger had failed to take it.

As you can tell, in general I think the concept of challenger versus defender is just plain cool. But to be clear, in this case I'm only suggesting it as an nth-level tiebreaker.

Ultimately I would prefer a historical criterion to a random one, for this reason: it is no less arbitrary, but it is inherently more interesting. But either is preferable to junk science.

I like that. It's very clear and definite.

Now's the time to implement that host-division scheme!