People associated with Iowa Football say they officially at least tied for West Div title? True?

[ssckelley]

because Iowa won the West Outright. all that rambling you went on about being co-champs before the games were decided did not age well

It aged just fine, I don't take back anything I've said in this thread. I wasn't rambling about being co-champs, did you read any of my other comments in this thread? It's not about what us fans think it's about the players and the team, they are the ones who go out and earn it. If they are excited about getting the trophy and wearing the shirts then who are we to say shit about it?

 

[Fryowa]

I don’t know why this is so hard for people to understand. The Big Ten has always recognized co-championships with the head-to-head determining who advances to the Rose Bowl (in the old days) and now to the Big ten title game.

some examples: Iowa in 1990 tied with 3 other teams. All 4 were recognized as big ten champs. Iowa advanced to rose bowl because we beat the other 3 teams (mich; ILL; MSU).

In 2004 Iowa tied with Mich for big ten title. Mich won the head to head and went to the rose. We went to Cap one bowl.

in 2019, MN and Wis tied for the West title. Both were recognized as champions. Wis went to big title game because they beat MN head to head.

this year, if Wis beats MN they are west champs along with us. But they won the head to head so they advance to big ten title game. Both teams are division champions.

Fryowa said this wasn’t the case. For one of the few times, he was incorrect.

You can put lipstick on a pig and call it Marylin Monroe all you want, but there is one champion of a division and that's the winner of the tie breaker no matter what anyone says. The tie breaker exists because there needs to be a way to determine who plays for the overall conference championship.

If it were truly "co-champs"...then you'd need a round robin to determine the overall champ between the ties, no?

 

[HuckFinn]

I think the conference made a decision that requires how championships are defined. But, of course, some of the posters know better.

 

[HuckFinn]

I think we should determine the true west division champ by comparing how each team came out against every team, head to head. Please submit an algorithm. Thanks.

 

[ssckelley]

You can put lipstick on a pig and call it Marylin Monroe all you want, but there is one champion of a division and that's the winner of the tie breaker no matter what anyone says. The tie breaker exists because there needs to be a way to determine who plays for the overall conference championship.

If it were truly "co-champs"...then you'd need a round robin to determine the overall champ between the ties, no?

You should take this up with the Big Ten office, they are the ones calling everyone that ties a champion. Had Iowa lost on Friday the Big Ten would have sent out 6 championship trophies for division winners (4 in the West and 2 in the East). My guess is Iowa probably reacted much differently to the trophy after beating Nebraska than Ohio State after they had lost to Michigan. I would also guess Iowa would have reacted differently had they lost to Nebraska and then had gotten a West Champion trophy sent to them.

Bottom line is it makes no difference what us fans think, I wouldn't have bought a West Champion shirt then and I still don't want one now (I want a Big Ten Champion shirt), but if the teams want to celebrate it then let them. They are the ones that play the games, let them feel good about what they accomplished.

 

[Fryowa]

I think we should determine the true west division champ by comparing how each team came out against every team, head to head. Please submit an algorithm. Thanks.

There already is an algorithm. The tie breaker rules that are already in place are literally an algorithm.

 

[ssckelley]

There already is an algorithm. The tie breaker rules that are already in place are literally an algorithm.

That's the criteria's they use to determine the representative for the Big Ten Championship game when there are 2 teams tied, they get much more complicated when there are more. That's not how the Big Ten determines division championship, it's best record period. It does not matter if you tie other teams for the best record, any team that has the best record in the division is considered a division champion.

Granted I don't agree with it, I think they should use the same criteria's they use to determine the BTC representative as the division champion but that's the way the Big Ten has always done it, even before there were divisions. Every team that had the best record in the conference won a conference champion trophy regardless of ties.

 

[cincyhawk]

The ghost of the Purdue loss…….

If not for that liss, Iowa would be top ten and going for a playoff spot this weekend.

Sorry. That game still. STILL! Triggers me. Gah.

 

[ChosenChildren]

You can put lipstick on a pig and call it Marylin Monroe all you want, but there is one champion of a division and that's the winner of the tie breaker no matter what anyone says. The tie breaker exists because there needs to be a way to determine who plays for the overall conference championship.

If it were truly "co-champs"...then you'd need a round robin to determine the overall champ between the ties, no?

Happy we didn't TIE for anything. Iowa is the outright West champion

 

[uihawk82]

That's the criteria's they use to determine the representative for the Big Ten Championship game when there are 2 teams tied, they get much more complicated when there are more. That's not how the Big Ten determines division championship, it's best record period. It does not matter if you tie other teams for the best record, any team that has the best record in the division is considered a division champion.

Granted I don't agree with it, I think they should use the same criteria's they use to determine the BTC representative as the division champion but that's the way the Big Ten has always done it, even before there were divisions. Every team that had the best record in the conference won a conference champion trophy regardless of ties.

Correct, end of story, well said. Let's see didnt the hawks win a co-championship in 2002 and 2004!!!!!! So they were Big 10 Champs or call them Co-champs if you want to keep arguing about this. The tiebreaker only determines who plays the next week, period.

 

[uihawk82]

If not for that liss, Iowa would be top ten and going for a playoff spot this weekend.

Sorry. That game still. STILL! Triggers me. Gah.

All of our recent losses against PU, stink university, and Brohm gall me. Last year Benson and Campbell were both sick or injured and the new right tackle had a tough 2nd half and of course the 2 uncharacteristic fumbles in the redzone by goodson and sargeant led to a super close loss. Snakebit against that team is how I see it or just the stats getting even over time.