First of all, congratulations to PSU on making the championship game based on the criteria established before the season started. This thread isn't about that. This is about the tiebreaker procedures and re-evaluating based on 2024.
I believe the selection criteria made it to rule #4 this year, which states:
4. The tied teams will be compared based on the best cumulative conference winning percentage of all conference opponents.
My analysis was done quickly and there may be errors
1. Remove all of the common opponents and we end up with the following uncommon opponents:
PSU
--------------------------
Opponent | Opponent Record | Outcome | Opponent SOS
ILL | 6-3 | W+14 | 30
@MN | 5-4 | W+1 | 53
@USC | 4-5 | W+3 | 29
@WI | 3-6 | +15 | 24
--------------------------
Avg SOS = 34
Avg win margin = 8.25
IU
--------------------------
Opponent | Opponent Record | Outcome | Opponent SOS
MI | 5-4 | W+5 | 7
NE | 3-6 | W+49 | 19
@NW | 2-7 | W+17 | 33
@MSU | 3-6 | W+37 | 23
--------------------------
AVG SOS = 20.5
AVG win margin = 27
Here's what the numbers tell me personally...
IU's uncommon opponents played a tougher schedule (Avg SOS = 20.5) vs PSU (Avg SOS = 34).
All 4 of IU's uncommon opponents played OSU. 2 also played OR.
None of PSU's uncommon opponents played OSU. 2 played OR.
IU beat their uncommon opponents by a much larger margin ( Avg Win = 27) than PSU (8.25)
PSU played one more road game against uncommon opponents than IU
Summary: Evaluation criteria #4 is not a comprehensive comparison of performance and needs to be revisited by the B1G in the offseason, as it doesn't take into account disparate schedules of the uncommon conference opponents. The teams don't control the schedules, only the games they play.
Additionally, rule #5 states that
5. The representative will be chosen based on the highest ranking by SportSource Analytics (team Rating Score metric) following the regular season.
I tried to access http://sportsourceanalytics.com/football-analytics.html however the information is not publicly available. If this is going to be an established criteria then the public should have access to the data and analytics being considered.
I believe the selection criteria made it to rule #4 this year, which states:
4. The tied teams will be compared based on the best cumulative conference winning percentage of all conference opponents.
My analysis was done quickly and there may be errors
1. Remove all of the common opponents and we end up with the following uncommon opponents:
PSU
--------------------------
Opponent | Opponent Record | Outcome | Opponent SOS
ILL | 6-3 | W+14 | 30
@MN | 5-4 | W+1 | 53
@USC | 4-5 | W+3 | 29
@WI | 3-6 | +15 | 24
--------------------------
Avg SOS = 34
Avg win margin = 8.25
IU
--------------------------
Opponent | Opponent Record | Outcome | Opponent SOS
MI | 5-4 | W+5 | 7
NE | 3-6 | W+49 | 19
@NW | 2-7 | W+17 | 33
@MSU | 3-6 | W+37 | 23
--------------------------
AVG SOS = 20.5
AVG win margin = 27
Here's what the numbers tell me personally...
IU's uncommon opponents played a tougher schedule (Avg SOS = 20.5) vs PSU (Avg SOS = 34).
All 4 of IU's uncommon opponents played OSU. 2 also played OR.
None of PSU's uncommon opponents played OSU. 2 played OR.
IU beat their uncommon opponents by a much larger margin ( Avg Win = 27) than PSU (8.25)
PSU played one more road game against uncommon opponents than IU
Summary: Evaluation criteria #4 is not a comprehensive comparison of performance and needs to be revisited by the B1G in the offseason, as it doesn't take into account disparate schedules of the uncommon conference opponents. The teams don't control the schedules, only the games they play.
Additionally, rule #5 states that
5. The representative will be chosen based on the highest ranking by SportSource Analytics (team Rating Score metric) following the regular season.
I tried to access http://sportsourceanalytics.com/football-analytics.html however the information is not publicly available. If this is going to be an established criteria then the public should have access to the data and analytics being considered.
