Having them count (crossover games) the same as conference games is unfair because teams get vastly more difficult crossover assignments than others in their division. Having them not count is meaningless and kinda ruins the whole "conference" part of Mid-American Conference.
I say we have a point system: 2 points for all wins in your division, 1 point for outside your division with head to head, then division record, being tiebreakers.
Let's run the hypotheticals, shall we? Say Terdledo wins all their MAC games in 2004 except for their 56-0 loss to BGSU.
BG beats all teams in the west, but loses to undefeated Marshall and (by some miracle, remember this is hypothetical) a one-loss OhioU Team. BG has 12 points for the 6 division wins, and 0 points for crossover games. Toledo has 10 points for their 5 division wins, and 2 points for their crossover wins against winless BUffalo and one-win Kent (w/o Cribbs).
Both teams have 12 points, and BG (rightfully so, IMHO) would get the nod in the MACC due to head-to-head competition. Under the old system, Toledo would go with a 7-1 record and BG would stay home with 6-2.
This eliminates the problem of two teams competing for a division title having vastly different calibur of opponents in crossover games. It is unfair right now, and this would lesson the importance of crossover games, but still give them meaning. (basically, a crossover win would be half a win in the divisional standings)
Comments?
How about giving your out of division games some type weight so if you play tougher games you get more credit for them instead of just giving them all 1 point?
Let's say your OOD games were an undefeated Marshall and 1 win Ohio (more likely)........maybe get 2 full ponts if you beat Marshall but only 1.2 for beating OU.
This all seems a little loopy to me.
The implication is that Bowling Green has tougher crossover games than Toledo.
I don't agree.
We host Marshall. That's a tough game, but we can win it.
Toledo plays Miami. That's just as tough a game for them.
Schadenfreude Wrote:This all seems a little loopy to me.
The implication is that Bowling Green has tougher crossover games than Toledo.
I don't agree.
We host Marshall. That's a tough game, but we can win it.
Toledo plays Miami. That's just as tough a game for them.
Not only that, but it is at Miami. And as for Ohio being a 1 loss team and Toledo only losing to BG, how is that possible? Ohio plays at Toledo and if Marshall is undefeated that means they beat Ohio, so does Ohio beat Toledo or lose to Toledo?
Plus there is no way either BG or Toledo wins the game 56-0 this year!
Schadenfreude Wrote:This all seems a little loopy to me.
The implication is that Bowling Green has tougher crossover games than Toledo.
I don't agree.
We host Marshall. That's a tough game, but we can win it.
Toledo plays Miami. That's just as tough a game for them.
This is all hypothetical. I am not saying that any school has a more difficult crossover schedule
this year. I am saying that the potential for unfairness exists because crossover games are weighted too heavily. Why do we have to wait until one school gets screwed before we change it?
I don't like weighting each game based on the record of the opponent. All I would hope for is a system in which rewards teams who win their division games more than crossover games.
I don't like crossover games counting. You have the potential for competing teams to have significantly easier or harder schedules than their division rivals.
I don't like the idea of crossover games having no weight (why even be in a conference???), hence the reduced emphasis on crossover games. Does anyone agree that my hypothetical situation above can happen and would be unfair? There are a few more problems with a three-way tie and one weak division vs a very strong one. If crossover games are weighted less, there is MUCH less a chance of someone being screwed by a tough set of crossover games.
I hope everyone can expand their minds and see how this is currently unfair.
I see your hypothetical point.
I just don't care for the solution.
No matter what, a MAC school is a MAC school. Before we went to divisions there were times that Team A did not play Team B, but Team C did play Team B and lose to them while Team A feasted on other teams and allowed them to win the MAC despite losing to Team C who had lost to Team B and Team Z! :D Man does that sound confusing.
Also, when crossover games didn't count back in 2000 we saw Marshall lose to both Toledo and WMU during the regular season but it didn't hurt their standing in Division play so they didn't have to worry about that in terms of making the MAC Championship game. Now as it turned out, if crossover games would have counted then Miami and Marshall would have been tied at 5-3 and since Marshall beat Miami they would have still got the nod to the MACC game. However, if Miami wouldn't have loss to either Akron or Ball State then their would have been some real controversy beat of the crossover games not counting.
IMO, all MAC games should count just the same no matter who it is!
I agree, RF. As in any conference, programs' fortunes change with the changing of players. Up this year could very well be down 2 years from now. And 4 or 5 years out? Who knows?? Play 'em all 1 for 1 and be done with it. I'd like to see the MAC office spread the opponents out on something that resembles a rotation, in spite of the "strength of schedule" argument.