Discussion on tie breakers.. it sucks..

[AlaCyclone]

I'm not worried about ISU in this mess.
Give me 7-2 and let it shake out like it shakes!
Might as well just go with last appearance clause.

 

[clone52]

Let's say ISU beats Texas and loses to KSU. How does a OU, OSU, UT and KSU tiebreak work?

Head to head doesn't work, so next step is record against Iowa State. OU and KSU are now tied. No head to head. They both played OSU and Texas. KSU lost to both so OU as the #1 seed.

2 seed comes down to KSU, UT and OSU. The next best common opponent is ISU, so KSU gets the #2.

If Texas wins out and KSU wins out, a three way tie between OU, OSU and KSU would go to a common opponent of ISU. OU and KSU would prevail. No head to head, so OU beating. UT and UT beating KSU means #2 is OU.

 

[CycloneSpinning]

I'm not worried about ISU in this mess.
Give me 7-2 and let it shake out like it shakes!
Might as well just go with last appearance clause.

If we beat Texas and K-State, I’d be super stoked. I’m sure I would ideally like to be in the championship game, but it would be hard to be too mad.

 

[clone52]

I'm not worried about ISU in this mess.
Give me 7-2 and let it shake out like it shakes!
Might as well just go with last appearance clause.

Agree. 7-2 would be incredible even without a CCG.

Let's say that OU beats OSU. OU gets an automatic NY6. Does Texas get an at-large? Probably. There would be a ton of 2 loss teams looking to fill 6 spots. Texas, Bama, Oregon, Penn State, Missouri, Louisville, Ole Miss, UNC. Then does the Alamo choose ISU or OSU? If it chooses OSU, then we are headed to Orlando.

 

[mred]

I am rethinking the 4 way tie with OSU, OU, Texas and ISU.

oSU and UT beat Kansas, so I assumed the 2 of them would get in, but you still have to break their tie. The tie breaker for the #1 seed would come down to winning % against OU and OSU. OSU wins that battle as the one seed.
Now you have a 3 way tie for the #2 seed. OU gets in due to beating both Texas and ISU.

Tiebreaker wouldn't be record vs OU and ISU.

"When arriving at another group of tied teams while comparing records, use each team’s win percentage against the collective tied teams as a group (prior to that group’s own tie-breaking procedure) rather than the performance against individual tied teams."

 

[clone52]

Tiebreaker wouldn't be record vs OU and ISU.

"When arriving at another group of tied teams while comparing records, use each team’s win percentage against the collective tied teams as a group (prior to that group’s own tie-breaking procedure) rather than the performance against individual tied teams."

I think it would. You'd take the win % against the collective tied teams (OU and ISU in this case) rather than saying OU is ahead of ISU and taking their record against OU only. Either way, though, OSU is the #1 seed.

 

[mred]

I think it would. You'd take the win % against the collective tied teams (OU and ISU in this case) rather than saying OU is ahead of ISU and taking their record against OU only. Either way, though, OSU is the #1 seed.

But there are four tied teams, not two. You are separating OU and ISU from the other two when doing the common record down the standings step, and that's not how the tiebreaker works (due to the clause I quoted).

 

[clone52]

But there are four tied teams, not two. You are separating OU and ISU from the other two when doing the common record down the standings step, and that's not how the tiebreaker works (due to the clause I quoted).

The 4 tied teams goes to criteria 2. Record against the best common opponent, which would be Kansas. OSU and Texas both beat Kansas. The clause you quoted would apply if the 4 teams had 2 common opponents with the same W/L record. In this case, we don't hit that clause. Now you have a 2 way tie with because OU and ISU were eliminated on the first tiebreaker. When you break down OSU and Texas, OSU becomes the #1 seed.

Now you need to determine the #2 seed. You have a 3-way tie between OU, ISU and Texas for 2nd place (since OSU won the 1st place tiebreaker). Since OU beat ISU and Texas, OU would be the #2 seed.

Edit: I think I have the logic correct, but I may be entirely wrong.

 

[danvillecyclone]

Why do I picture 4 teams showing up in Dallas waiting for a court ruling?

 

[StLouisClone]

If ISU and OSU win out, ISU will deservedly surge way ahead of OSU in the CFP rankings. We beat them earlier and we will have played a tougher B12 schedule than them. I half wonder if Gundy would let ISU take its place in the B12 championship anyway.

This idea that it will come down to who had the best record against a common opponent is foolish. As this article points out, there is a chance that 8 teams could finish in a first place tie at 6-3. What if there is no common opponent among the teams in the tie? Are the ADs going to have another meeting... only this time after the season has ended?

The tiebreaker rules need to be rewritten, and they need to be rewritten NOW. Don't wait until the season is over.

https://www.kansas.com/sports/college/big-12/kansas-state/article281863948.html

 

[Die4Cy]

None of this matters if ISU doesn't win both games left on their schedule, arguably the toughest two of the year. But it's a good thing for the program to be able to have this as a motivation on game day at the end of the season.

 

[clone52]

If ISU and OSU win out, ISU will deservedly surge way ahead of OSU in the CFP rankings. We beat them earlier and we will have played a tougher B12 schedule than them. I half wonder if Gundy would let ISU take its place in the B12 championship anyway.

This idea that it will come down to who had the best record against a common opponent is foolish. As this article points out, there is a chance that 8 teams could finish in a first place tie at 6-3. What if there is no common opponent among the teams in the tie? Are the ADs going to have another meeting... only this time after the season has ended?

The tiebreaker rules need to be rewritten, and they need to be rewritten NOW. Don't wait until the season is over.

https://www.kansas.com/sports/college/big-12/kansas-state/article281863948.html

If there is an 8 team tie, then they would go to step 3 or step 4 of the tiebreaker rule.

What criteria would you propose?

 

[Cyowa 14]

If you're not on the team, you don't have control over anything.

As a fan, I'm interested in knowing what the possibilities (if any) are for ISU to reach the CCG.

The fact that so few fans have this correct opinion is quite alarming. If you are a fan that wants to only think about the next game that's fine but don't chastise fans that look at future scenarios etc. I promise it has no bearing on how the team plays or the outcome of games

 

[StLouisClone]

If there is an 8 team tie, then they would go to step 3 or step 4 of the tiebreaker rule.

What criteria would you propose?

The team(s) with the most wins amongst the teams in the tie should win the tiebreaker. If that doesn't break it, then look at the team with the fewest losses as the 2nd tiebreaker. It's simple, and it potentially rewards the team that played the toughest schedule.

 

[StLouisClone]

If there is an 8 team tie, then they would go to step 3 or step 4 of the tiebreaker rule.

What criteria would you propose?

Common opponent shouldn't be the 2nd tiebreaker. Why base such an important decision on such a fluky factor? What if the best common opponent was a team like Houston or Cincinnati that finished at the bottom of the standings?

 

[BoomerClone]

Just win out and let itself sort its way out. The last thing I want to see though is a Texas v Oklahoma championship game. It certainly seems like at least 1 of them will be in it. I sure as hell hope not both

 

[MartyFine]

We still need OU or OSU to lose once. In a four-way tie with OU, OSU, UT, ISU, or a three-way tie that drops Texas, OSU holds the tiebreaker for the #1 spot and OU holds the tiebreaker over ISU or ISU/UT combined for the #2 spot.

So that McMurphy tweet is incorrect then, right?

 

[mred]

So that McMurphy tweet is incorrect then, right?

Which tweet?

 

[MartyFine]

Which tweet?

The one previously mentioned in this thread...

 

[mred]

The one previously mentioned in this thread...

I don't think there's anything incorrect in it (other than the statement that is not a rule change).