tie breakers

[aggiejet]

Even MRED doesn’t know. He or she is providing 2 simulators. There is also a link to all the assumptions on X.

I see that conditional language at the top of his/her predictor now.

Im having a hard time understanding how that with one game to go, there isn’t clear language that would define CCG participants. This strikes me as some incredibly poor planning on part on the new Big 12 honchos. Despite their “clarification” it appears that it is far from clear. This is obviously an undesirable by-product of not having “everybody plays everybody” scenarios like the Big 12 has had with ten teams.

I wonder if there is any plans to creating divisions inside the conference (EAST/WEST) to help this situation?

 

[Georgia Poke]

I see that conditional language at the top of his/her predictor now.

Im having a hard time understanding how that with one game to go, there isn’t clear language that would define CCG participants. This strikes me as some incredibly poor planning on part on the new Big 12 honchos. Despite their “clarification” it appears that it is far from clear. This is obviously an undesirable by-product of not having “everybody plays everybody” scenarios like the Big 12 has had with ten teams.

I wonder if there is any plans to creating divisions inside the conference (EAST/WEST) to help this situation?

Divisions create their own problems as they never work out evenly in regard to quality/competition.

 

[CptnQuirk]

I see that conditional language at the top of his/her predictor now.

Im having a hard time understanding how that with one game to go, there isn’t clear language that would define CCG participants. This strikes me as some incredibly poor planning on part on the new Big 12 honchos. Despite their “clarification” it appears that it is far from clear. This is obviously an undesirable by-product of not having “everybody plays everybody” scenarios like the Big 12 has had with ten teams.

I wonder if there is any plans to creating divisions inside the conference (EAST/WEST) to help this situation?

I thought the language was clear. First rank the win percentages of the tied teams against each other in games played against each other. Ignore all other games at that point.

 

[PokeJ]

I see that conditional language at the top of his/her predictor now.

Im having a hard time understanding how that with one game to go, there isn’t clear language that would define CCG participants. This strikes me as some incredibly poor planning on part on the new Big 12 honchos. Despite their “clarification” it appears that it is far from clear. This is obviously an undesirable by-product of not having “everybody plays everybody” scenarios like the Big 12 has had with ten teams.

I wonder if there is any plans to creating divisions inside the conference (EAST/WEST) to help this situation?

Divisions will be a thing of the past. SEC is dumping them. B12 already have.

The solution would be to just have smaller conferences. That boat has sailed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Georgia Poke]

The solution would be to just have smaller conferences. That boat has sailed

Ideally, we'd have 10 team conferences with nine-game conference schedules. Everybody plays everybody...

 

[aggiejet]

I thought the language was clear. First rank the win percentages of the tied teams against each other in games played against each other. Ignore all other games at that point.

You serious, Clark?

It’s only clear if all the favorites win and there is a three way tie for second between OSU, KSU, and OU.

1. Head-to-head (best cumulative win percentage in games among the tied teams). If not, every tied team has played each other, go to step 2.

(This is an unbelievably badly worded second sentence, hence the “clarification” by the Big12.)

However, let’s say Texas loses to Tech and OSU, KSU, and OU win leaving a 4 way tie for first and the teams did not all play each other, which means step 2 language is used.

2. 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.
1. 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.

It’s at this point I give up and black out. If you can explain the above to me, I bow down.

 

[CptnQuirk]

You serious, Clark?

It’s only clear if all the favorites win and there is a three way tie for second between OSU, KSU, and OU.

1. Head-to-head (best cumulative win percentage in games among the tied teams). If not, every tied team has played each other, go to step 2.

(This is an unbelievably badly worded second sentence, hence the “clarification” by the Big12.)

However, let’s say Texas loses to Tech and OSU, KSU, and OU win leaving a 4 way tie for first and the teams did not all play each other, which means step 2 language is used.

2. 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.
1. 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.

It’s at this point I give up and black out. If you can explain the above to me, I bow down.

The key term is win percentage. The first part of the rule for tie breakers between 3 or more teams says:

“1. Head-to-head (best cumulative win percentage in games among the tied teams). If not, every tied team has played each other, go to step 2.

2. 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.

1. 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 take this to mean that you compare the win percentages of each team in games played amongst the tied teams. For example: Teams A,B and C are tied. Teams A and B have played and Team A won. Teams B and C have played and Team B won. Teams A and C have not played. Teams A and C played one game amongst the three teams. Team B played two games. The win percentages for Team A is 100%, having won its only game. Team B’s win percentage would be 50%, having won one game of two. Team C’s win percentage would be 0%, having lost its one game. Team A would be the winner of the tie breaker. Then the head to head between Teams B and C would determine the other team in the playoff with Team B prevailing. I all three teams had played with A beating B, B beating C and C beating A then all three would have a 50% win percentage so they would move on to the second tiebreaker.

So what is so hard to understand about best cumulative win percentage in games among the tied teams? Take a team from the tied teams. How many game did they play against the other tied teams? How many of those games did they win. Calculate the percentages. Do this for all of the tied teams. If there is no team among those who has a best win percentage, then move on to step 2. My only question would be if two teams have a tied percentage which is higher than the other two, do both those teams make to the CCG or do they move on to step 2?

 

[aggiejet]

The key term is win percentage. The first part of the rule for tie breakers between 3 or more teams says:

“1. Head-to-head (best cumulative win percentage in games among the tied teams). If not, every tied team has played each other, go to step 2.

2. 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.

1. 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 take this to mean that you compare the win percentages of each team in games played amongst the tied teams. For example: Teams A,B and C are tied. Teams A and B have played and Team A won. Teams B and C have played and Team B won. Teams A and C have not played. Teams A and C played one game amongst the three teams. Team B played two games. The win percentages for Team A is 100%, having won its only game. Team B’s win percentage would be 50%, having won one game of two. Team C’s win percentage would be 0%, having lost its one game. Team A would be the winner of the tie breaker. Then the head to head between Teams B and C would determine the other team in the playoff with Team B prevailing. I all three teams had played with A beating B, B beating C and C beating A then all three would have a 50% win percentage so they would move on to the second tiebreaker.

So what is so hard to understand about best cumulative win percentage in games among the tied teams? Take a team from the tied teams. How many game did they play against the other tied teams? How many of those games did they win. Calculate the percentages. Do this for all of the tied teams. If there is no team among those who has a best win percentage, then move on to step 2. My only question would be if two teams have a tied percentage which is higher than the other two, do both those teams make to the CCG or do they move on to step 2?

So if OSU, KSU, OU, and UT all end the season with a 7-2 record, can the first step be used? I say no because OSU didn’t play Texas. So we proceed to step 2. Which means using Kansas with whom we compare records. That throws OU out because they are only team of the four tied teams to lose to KU. So now we go back to step 1. Do you agree with that?

 

[ThePoke]

This statement implies they might be making shit up as they go….

“Because there are still many scenarios that could unfold, the Big 12 has noted that it will issue updated scenarios following the conclusion of Friday’s games.”

 

[aggiejet]

This statement implies they might be making shit up as they go….

“Because there are still many scenarios that could unfold, the Big 12 has noted that it will issue updated scenarios following the conclusion of Friday’s games.”

I’m sure this will make the OU crazies twist a little in the wind……which is just delicious.

 

[MT Cowboy]

So if OSU, KSU, OU, and UT all end the season with a 7-2 record, can the first step be used? I say no because OSU didn’t play Texas. So we proceed to step 2. Which means using Kansas with whom we compare records. That throws OU out because they are only team of the four tied teams to lose to KU. So now we go back to step 1. Do you agree with that?

I think it can. To me the wording suggests step 2 is only resorted to when all tied teams have played each other and/or all have the same cumulative W/L% against each other, like in 08 or whatever year that Tech, ut, and 0u were all 1-1 against each other. In that case, it's results vs highest ranked common opponents in order of finish. But between us, ksu, ut, and 0u, it works for all head-to-head results. We would be the #1 at 100% (2-0 record vs ksu and 0u). KSU would be out at 0% (0-2 record vs us and ut). Then between ut and 0u the head-to-head favors 0u. So a bedlam rematch for the title.

Hypothetically if we lost to KSU instead of ISU, it's now all 4 of us at 1-1 (us: 0u/ksu, ksu: us/ut, 0u: ut/us, ut: ksu/0u). No advantage to anyone, so move to highest common opponent starting with KU, etc...

That seems logical to me but I have zero clue if that's what's meant by the wording or not.

 

[CptnQuirk]

So if OSU, KSU, OU, and UT all end the season with a 7-2 record, can the first step be used? I say no because OSU didn’t play Texas. So we proceed to step 2. Which means using Kansas with whom we compare records. That throws OU out because they are only team of the four tied teams to lose to KU. So now we go back to step 1. Do you agree with that?

That’s exactly what they did when they were talking about a tiebreaker between OSU, OU and KSU. KSU didn’t play OU. By beating the other two, we have a 100% win percentage. Neither of the other two can do that even if they had played. One of them would have a 50% win percentage and the other a 0% win percentage.

The first tiebreaker says.

1. Head-to-head (best cumulative win percentage in games among the tied teams). If not, every tied team has played each other, go to step 2.

It does not say “If every tied team has not played each other, go to step 2.”

 

[ThePoke]

That’s exactly what they did when they were talking about a tiebreaker between OSU, OU and KSU. KSU didn’t play OU. By beating the other two, we have a 100% win percentage. Neither of the other two can do that even if they had played. One of them would have a 50% win percentage and the other a 0% win percentage.

The first tiebreaker says.

1. Head-to-head (best cumulative win percentage in games among the tied teams). If not, every tied team has played each other, go to step 2.

It does not say “If every tied team has not played each other, go to step 2.”

I agree with step 1 per the conference clarification.

This was on USA Today:
“Per the original wording of the rules, it appeared as if Step 1 would not take effect because Oklahoma and Kansas State had not played each other. Were that the case, that would remove the consideration of Oklahoma State's wins over both teams in the tiebreaker and cause Step 2 to apply instead.”

What was clarified:
"Regarding Step 1 of Multiple-Team Ties in Conference Tiebreaker Procedure: in the event of a multiple-team tie, head-to-head wins takes precedence. If all the tied teams are not common opponents, the tied team that defeated each of the other tied teams earns the Championship berth."

In other words, Oklahoma State's head-to-head wins over Oklahoma and Kansas State would count as the necessary head-to-head wins over other tied opponents to earn a berth in the Big 12 Football Championship.

Who is playing in the Big 12 Championship game? A timeline of league's tiebreaker confusion

The Big 12 Conference has faced confusion regarding its championship tiebreakers. Here's a timeline of events so far.

www.usatoday.com

 

[aggiejet]

That’s exactly what they did when they were talking about a tiebreaker between OSU, OU and KSU. KSU didn’t play OU. By beating the other two, we have a 100% win percentage. Neither of the other two can do that even if they had played. One of them would have a 50% win percentage and the other a 0% win percentage.

The first tiebreaker says.

1. Head-to-head (best cumulative win percentage in games among the tied teams). If not, every tied team has played each other, go to step 2.

It does not say “If every tied team has not played each other, go to step 2.”

I agree. I was completely overlooking the fact that OU/KSU haven’t played. Thanks for grinding thru it with me.

 

[CptnQuirk]

I agree. I was completely overlooking the fact that OU/KSU haven’t played. Thanks for grinding thru it with me.

Finally, someone is understanding what I have been saying.

 

[OrangeFanatic2]

Finally, someone is understanding what I have been saying.

I have viewed this the same. Just win!

 

[aggiejet]

Finally, someone is understanding what I have been saying.

After sleeping on it, I’m not so much agreeing as capitulating. You make a compelling case given the “clarification” language.

That said, I think the multi-team language is ambiguous. If you read the language for two- team tiebreaker, there is definite language that places emphasis on a head-to-head competition to determine a winner. Absent that, then a game against next highest rank common opponent is used.

It would make sense that the intent was followed in the situation where there is multiple tied teams.

So is your interpretation of Step 1 of the multi team tiebreaker rule that Step 2 is only used if there isn’t a clear winner of “win percentage amongst all the tied teams”?

 

[CptnQuirk]

After sleeping on it, I’m not so much agreeing as capitulating. You make a compelling case given the “clarification” language.

That said, I think the multi-team language is ambiguous. If you read the language for two- team tiebreaker, there is definite language that places emphasis on a head-to-head competition to determine a winner. Absent that, then a game against next highest rank common opponent is used.

It would make sense that the intent was followed in the situation where there is multiple tied teams.

So is your interpretation of Step 1 of the multi team tiebreaker rule that Step 2 is only used if there isn’t a clear winner of “win percentage amongst all the tied teams”?

Yes, I will mostly agree with that. My only question is if two teams are needed for the CCG, do they take the two teams with the best win percentages even if their numbers are different?

 

[aggiejet]

Yes, I will mostly agree with that. My only question is if two teams are needed for the CCG, do they take the two teams with the best win percentages even if their numbers are different?

I’m not sure I understand your question. But I think that’s possible because of the very likely possibility of ties. I believe that only because I’m trying to guess their intent because otherwise the language and punctuation is not very good, imo.

The overwhelming takeway for me is that I’m gonna have to get familiar with the tiebreaker language because of the lack of “everybody plays everybody” scenarios moving forward in the new Big “12” And it seems that you have to be able to grind through tiebreaker language just to rank the teams within the conference. Pretty complicated.

 

[CptnQuirk]

I’m not sure I understand your question. But I think that’s possible because of the very likely possibility of ties. I believe that only because I’m trying to guess their intent because otherwise the language and punctuation is not very good, imo.

The overwhelming takeway for me is that I’m gonna have to get familiar with the tiebreaker language because of the lack of “everybody plays everybody” scenarios moving forward in the new Big “12” And it seems that you have to be able to grind through tiebreaker language just to rank the teams within the conference. Pretty complicated.

The first thing is to calculate the win percentage of the tied teams in games played amongst the tied teams.