This is fun being part of the mix. Beats last year.
Football Tiebreaker Rule Change
- Thread starter Lewey24
- Start date
No, it’s still clear as mud and probably doesn’t affect scenarios relevant to us.
Say we win out and finish tied at 7-2 with Texas, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. Within that tied group, ISU and OU are 2-1, OSU is 1-1, and UT is 0-2. Oklahoma State and Texas didn’t play each other.
Nobody is 3-0 against the other tied teams in this scenario, so the clarification doesn’t seem to play any role unless additional language is added that hasn’t been reported yet.
The tiebreaker really needs clarification at several steps. I doubt we get that until next year.
Just do a 4 team big 12 playoff. Let’s have some fun.
If this happens, the rules should be straightforward that ISU and OU go to the championship game. Those teams would have finished 7-2 while playing a tougher schedule than Okie State and Texas.
Should, by doing away with divisions without a full round Robin opens up corruption. I.E. they send who they want.
This reminds me of 2017 when we were 4-1 in conference and there was talk about chances/scenarios of making the conference championship game. Back then it seemed crazy to talk about it, but I don't think anyone seriously thought it would happen. Since then, we've been in that discussion every year (except for last year) and now it's a serious possibility again. This coaching staff is elite and perfect for ISU. This team is young and we can look forward to these discussions over the next several years. What a great time to be a Cyclone fan!
KCCI said on their six o'clock news that ISU has to win out and then have OU and/or OSU lose a game. If we win out we would have the tie breaker over UT, OSU and KSU, but not to OU.
I've set up a temporary version of my tiebreaker site that has the new logic. I'll switch the main page over to this logic once it's officially announced.
https://bball.notnothing.net/big12.php?sport=fb&xml=big12fbnew
https://bball.notnothing.net/big12.php?sport=fb&xml=big12fbnew
This is what the rule would override. Kansas St, Oklahoma St, and Oklahoma tied for 2nd means that Kansas St or Oklahoma goes to B12 title game. Even though OSU beat both of them.
Round robin between OSU (2-0), KSU(0-1) and OU(0-1) is currently skipped since KSU didnt play OU.
So it moves to the next tier which is record vs highest ranked common opponents. This would be Kansas and ISU (Kansas St advances) or just ISU (Oklahoma advances).
You rock btw. Your #2 note is the part i am most curious about. “Next highest” makes it sound like they wouldn’t start at #1 if the tiebreaker was amongst #2s, which would be stupid. But why the word “next” then. Its a key word to the whole step
“2. After head-to-head or round-robin, the next tiebreak steap states "Record against the next highest placed common opponent in the standings (based on record in all games played within the conference), proceeding through the standings." I'm assuming they mean starting at the top, not actually the next one down. In other words, if teams are tied for #2, I assume they start this step by looking at record vs #1, even though that's not actually what the procedure says.”
I'm basically trying to guess as to how they interpret their own tiebreaker. I can't imagine they'd skip record vs #1 team when breaking a tie at #2.
We will have beaten 3 of the 4 opponents head to head, but that’s different than saying we “have the tiebreaker over them”. It’s more complicated than that.
If OSU, Texas, OU, ISU tie at 7-2. The 4 way round robin currently gets skipped due to OSU vs Texas not happening. The outcome of that game would have impacted who gets eliminated. So in that scenario skipping it makes sense.
ISU (2-1)
OU (2-1)
OSU (1-1)
UT (0-2)
ISU (2-1)
OU (2-1)
OSU (1-1)
UT (0-2)
BYU is too proud of a program to lose twice at home and really want them to spoil OU’s season.
It feels like what they ought to do in that situation is eliminate Texas because the best they could be is 1-2 if all the teams played each other, but I know (or at least think) that isn’t how they do it.
