Template talk:2008 ACC football standings
|WikiProject College football||(Rated Template-class)|
Proposal to standardize conference standings across CFB project
For those interested, please see the discussion here related to standardizing conference standings templates: Talk:2008 NCAA Division I FBS football season#Proposal to standardize conference standings across CFB project Ryan2845 (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Order of standings
- I have to disagree with you. I can't believe the table you reference is meant by the ACC to be definitive seeing as how it is ranked according to overall winning percentage, which includes non-conference games. That is in direct opposition to the official method that the ACC uses to determine its own standings (see below). You can see there, that no where does the ACC take into consideration non-conference games (because it's simply not a good objective metric, whereas conference games are).
- ESPN's standings are in line with the ACC's actual guidelines: , and I feel this is what the table should reflect. This way, the division champions are actually at the top of their divisions.
- Here are the ACC guidelines (source: weekly press release): Strikehold (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe there are any divisional "co-champions" (as indicated by the most recent revision of this template). As far as I understand it, the division championships can only be won by one team, and there is an intricate set of ACC rules to determine the winner in the case of a multiple-way tie. This year, both divisions were topped by two teams with identical conference records, so in this case the division champions (and which get to play in the ACCCG) were decided by who won head-to-head. Virginia Tech (who earlier beat GT) won the Coastal and Boston College (who earlier beat FSU) won the Atlantic. If I am mistaken, please someone correct me. Otherwise, I'm changing the template. Strikehold (talk) 06:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- The ACC has recognized co-champions in the past (see pg. 91 of the ACC media guide). The tiebreaker rules are simply used to decide who goes to the post season championship, but are not used to determine regular season championships. This is also true for other conferences like the SEC and Big 12. Ryan2845 (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ryan, the ACC has recognized conference co-champions in the past before it was divided into divisions. At that time, all ACC teams played each other via a round-robin system. In 2005, the ACC expanded to 12 teams, and by NCAA rules was then allowed to reorganize to form divisions. Since then, they have had a championship game between each division champion. Therefore, there are no longer any co-champions, divisional or otherwise. Strikehold (talk) 08:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I understand that, but I believe they follow the same format as the SEC and Big 12 which DO award divisional co-championships. I assume the new format just hasn't been around long it enough for it to have occurred (not sure, i'm a big 12 guy... we've had 7 or 8 divisional co-champs in the big 12). Straight from the ACC website "If two or more teams are tied with the highest percentage of wins, they shall be declared division co-champions." Ryan2845 (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Rankings to use
We shouldn't use BCS rankings. They don't exist at the beginning of the season, and are worthless at the end except for whoever is ranked #1 and #2 (and top 14 if that team wants a at-large bid). See the discussion here. Ndenison talk 14:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)