Let's settle this up front

[FirstDownB]

Is there such a distinction as Division Co-Champ for a team that finishes the season in a tie for the division lead but does not win the tie breaker for the championship game?

Wiki thinks so.

Ref:
2011 Penn State
2015 Ohio St
2016 Ohio St
2019 Minnesota
2021 Ohio St

But its hard to find such a reference in any 'official' literature.

So let's give it to the court of (Purdue) public opinion and settled ahead of time. No take-backs. You stand behind your choice 2 weeks from today.

 

[Tommaker]

Is there such a distinction as Division Co-Champ for a team that finishes the season in a tie for the division lead but does not win the tie breaker for the championship game?

Wiki thinks so.

Ref:
2011 Penn State
2015 Ohio St
2016 Ohio St
2019 Minnesota
2021 Ohio St

But its hard to find such a reference in any 'official' literature.

So let's give it to the court of (Purdue) public opinion and settled ahead of time. No take-backs. You stand behind your choice 2 weeks from today.

 

[Wolegib]

It’s sort of like division championships in profess sports! Nobody cares how many divisional championships the bucks or packers have won! For that matter, big 10 championships in basketball don’t count either! It’s all about winning the championship! Ask Rodgers and Brady what he is proudest of!

 

[FirstDownB]

It’s sort of like division championships in profess sports! Nobody cares how many divisional championships the bucks or packers have won! For that matter, big 10 championships in basketball don’t count either! It’s all about winning the championship! Ask Rodgers and Brady what he is proudest of!

Ok. But the poll question isn't about whether or not you care. And it isn't about divisional titles in general. It is specifically about a co-champion scenario. I understand you don't place any value in that, you don't need to in order to vote either Yes or No. McDonald's hamburgers exist. They are toxic dog meat sandwiches that I have no use for. But they do exist.
Would you recognize a co-championship as an actual thing, as you just recognized the Pakers divisional titles? Or is it a purely fictional claim?

 

[DrEss]

Sharing is caring

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

At first blush, it sounds like a lucid, intelligent, well-thought-out position........

 

[Tommaker]

At first blush, it sounds like a lucid, intelligent, well-thought-out position........

Great movie, worthy or a sequel that never was.

 

[Indy_Rider]

It’s sort of like division championships in profess sports! Nobody cares how many divisional championships the bucks or packers have won! For that matter, big 10 championships in basketball don’t count either! It’s all about winning the championship! Ask Rodgers and Brady what he is proudest of!

So, you don't know anything about B10 basketball then, because B10 championships do matter. Sure, everyone wants to win a national championship, but to say B10 championships don't matter has to be one of the dumbest things you have ever said, and that's really saying something because you've said a lot of dumb stuff.

 

[Indy_Rider]

Ok. But the poll question isn't about whether or not you care. And it isn't about divisional titles in general. It is specifically about a co-champion scenario. I understand you don't place any value in that, you don't need to in order to vote either Yes or No. McDonald's hamburgers exist. They are toxic dog meat sandwiches that I have no use for. But they do exist.
Would you recognize a co-championship as an actual thing, as you just recognized the Pakers divisional titles? Or is it a purely fictional claim?

Well, maybe he's on to something. So, from now on, you can't consider yourself a track athlete unless they won a world title or Olympic gold. Remember, champions are all that matter, especially in something obscure as track.

 

[FirstDownB]

2 more days to vote. So far the majority says NO to co-champs.

 

[NVboiler]

If you don't want co-champions, have a mechanism for direct head to head meetings to determine an actual championship. I'm sure in a lot of sports no one really cares who becomes champions because there is so little interest, so co-championships are more acceptable.

And when a sport involves the accumulation of several results (e.g. track, swimming, wrestling) results will differ if you just have head to head competitions. That's why these events have a different type of championship involving multiple teams.

 

[FirstDownB]

If you don't want co-champions, have a mechanism for direct head to head meetings to determine an actual championship. I'm sure in a lot of sports no one really cares who becomes champions because there is so little interest, so co-championships are more acceptable.

And when a sport involves the accumulation of several results (e.g. track, swimming, wrestling) results will differ if you just have head to head competitions. That's why these events have a different type of championship involving multiple teams.

In this case the mechanism exists, which is the tie breakers, the first of which is head-to-head record. That is the #1 argument against any claims to a division co-championship. Wisconsin fans were clowning Minnesota for their claim a few years ago for this very reason. You're right about there being little interest in this subject, as most people only care about who ends up holding the trophy in Indy. Pedantic discussions about things that aren't of great importance are somewhat of guilty pleasure of mine.

 

[BoilerFan#35]

I do not think that there is even a reason to celebrate a division championship so who cares? Cool in the moments building up into the actual championship game but in the long run means not much. Unless you win the Big Championship means nothing to me

 

[New Pal Boiler]

Is there such a distinction as Division Co-Champ for a team that finishes the season in a tie for the division lead but does not win the tie breaker for the championship game?

Wiki thinks so.

Ref:
2011 Penn State
2015 Ohio St
2016 Ohio St
2019 Minnesota
2021 Ohio St

But its hard to find such a reference in any 'official' literature.

So let's give it to the court of (Purdue) public opinion and settled ahead of time. No take-backs. You stand behind your choice 2 weeks from today.

The Colts would definitely hang a division Co-Champion banner, so I’m voting yes.

 

[GemstateBoiler]

Great movie, worthy or a sequel that never was.

"Perhaps the laws of physics cease to exist on your stove."

 

[FirstDownB]

Just heard Alan on the post game show, said something to me effect of Purdue wins at least a share of the division next week with a win at IU. Hedging week has officially begun.

 

[FirstDownB]

Carmin, addressing a question to Brohm in the post game: “If you win next week you’re going to get at least a share of the Big Ten West title…”

Seems the local media has now made up their minds.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Sure, technically it's a share of the division. But unless you are in Indy it's not really something about which to boast.

 

[NVboiler]

If you're a team that is tied but doesn't win the tie breakers, then you are a co-champion. If you win the tie breaker than you are the champion. And if you're another team not that good, there is only one champion, why promote more teams to be able to claim this?

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

If you're a team that is tied but doesn't win the tie breakers, then you are a co-champion. If you win the tie breaker than you are the champion. And if you're another team not that good, there is only one champion, why promote more teams to be able to claim this?

It doesn't make sense to me for a "division," but I've stated my case.....so be it.

 

[FirstDownB]

Sure, technically it's a share of the division. But unless you are in Indy it's not really something about which to boast.

A lot of people would say that representing the West this year is nothing to boast about. But is a “share” even a real thing?

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

Hey....what do ya know? It doesn't just happen to Purdue.