tie breakers

[Osucowboys344]

Well, why would clarification be needed? the rules for tiebreakers are established and published for all to see.

And sure, they should have done a better job from the onset. change it in the offseason. but isnt funny that it's not until mid november they figure out they f7cked up and coincidentally the two outgoing teams are right in the thick of it.

Or they wanted to provide some transparency and explain the rule so that certain dildos didn’t get butthurt and come up with a bunch of conspiracy theories for why they didn’t make the championship game despite losing to OSU.

 

[Cowboyshoopspride]

Or they wanted to provide some transparency and explain the rule so that certain dildos didn’t get butthurt and come up with a bunch of conspiracy theories for why they didn’t make the championship game despite losing to OSU.

Add to it the two outgoing teams have records that constitutive being “in the thick of it” with other teams that have same records. Has to be a conspiracy though. If only there was a way to solve this. A competition perhaps where the teams play one another and the results stand for themselves.

 

[CowboyJD]

Well, why would clarification be needed? the rules for tiebreakers are established and published for all to see.

And sure, they should have done a better job from the onset. change it in the offseason. but isnt funny that it's not until mid november they figure out they f7cked up and coincidentally the two outgoing teams are right in the thick of it.

 

[CowboyJD]

That's not a theory, that's a clear and obvious distinction. the worst thing the big 12 would want to see is the two outgoing teams in the ccg.

I didnt say anything about a conspiracy.

 

[PF5]

yea that comma in the second statement is confusing as hell. This is probably the best tale I’ve seen

I don't agree with Berry Tramel very often, but he hit it on the head with his 4th grader comment: (following taken from his article on this)

Here’s how the tiebreaker read for at least three teams tied: “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 two.”

Who wrote that tiebreaker? A fourth-grader?

 

[Backin82]

I don't agree with Berry Tramel very often, but he hit it on the head with his 4th grader comment: (following taken from his article on this)

Here’s how the tiebreaker read for at least three teams tied: “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 two.”

Who wrote that tiebreaker? A fourth-grader?

Reminds me of the correspondence received from rec league softball or intramurals coordinators. The rules are always sparsely written, ill-defined, and come across as an afterthought from a random person throwing together a document the night before.

 

[Functianalyst]

Simply put, they got it right in the end. I know K-State fans are disappointed but I don't think anyone disagrees it should be the Pokes in if they win out.

 

[orngblkzebra]

Simply put, they got it right in the end. I know K-State fans are disappointed but I don't think anyone not wearing a paperclip disagrees it should be the Pokes in if they win out.

Fify

 

[Osucowboys344]

Add to it the two outgoing teams have records that constitutive being “in the thick of it” with other teams that have same records. Has to be a conspiracy though. If only there was a way to solve this. A competition perhaps where the teams play one another and the results stand for themselves.

I think all the whiney puss bags would like the big 12 to change the rule to “in the thick of it” that allows teams that almost won head to head competition to have a play in game.

 

[Verbal]

With the clarification of the rules we need to win out and we need ut to beat isu. Does that sound right?

 

[Okstatekerr]

I think all the whiney puss bags would like the big 12 to change the rule to “in the thick of it” that allows teams that almost won head to head competition to have a play in game.

If the situation was reversed I guarantee you OU fans would have no qualms about this clarification happening. In fact they would be screaming conspiracy as well. You can't win with them so there is no use trying to convince them. Just win out, go the championship game, and tell OU to kick rocks. Don't let the door hit you on the way out

 

[Okstatekerr]

With the clarification of the rules we need to win out and we need ut to beat isu. Does that sound right?

Or KSU to beat ISU. Basically, as long as we don't end up in a tie with Iowa State then we are good. Just need ISU to drop one and even if KSU and OU win out we would hold the tie breaker.

 

[Verbal]

Or KSU to beat ISU. Basically, as long as we don't end up in a tie with Iowa State then we are good. Just need ISU to drop one and even if KSU and OU win out we would hold the tie breaker.

If everything goes as expected except ISU beats ut then there could be a four way tie between OSU, KSU, ut, and ou. I am not sure how that would resolve itself. Would it go to rule 2 at that point? If so it would be ISU as the common opponent and we would be out?

 

[Okstatekerr]

If everything goes as expected except ISU beats ut then there could be a four way tie between OSU, KSU, ut, and ou. I am not sure how that would resolve itself. Would it go to rule 2 at that point? If so it would be ISU as the common opponent and we would be out?

F if I know. Just got to root for Texas this weekend. That would clarify a lot.

 

[PF5]

we win out and texas wins out is my wish?! i think...would rather play someone we haven't played this season and would love to have a chance to send both future seccers away with an L!

 

[Okstatekerr]

we win out and texas wins out is my wish?! i think...would rather play someone we haven't played this season and would love to have a chance to send both future seccers away with an L!

Texas winning out definitely puts the ball firmly in our court to get to the championship game. I firmly believe that we will beat Houston and then lose to a really bad BYU team and get our hearts ripped out again. But maybe that's just the PTSD.

 

[Midnight Toker]

Or they wanted to provide some transparency and explain the rule so that certain dildos didn’t get butthurt and come up with a bunch of conspiracy theories for why they didn’t make the championship game despite losing to OSU.

Nobody cares about people being butthurt, nobody cares about conspiracy theories. completely irrelevant.

I dont care what the rules is. means nothing to me, i only care that it doesn't get changed in november. there's no need to clarify an already existing rule that's there for everyone to see. iif someone reads the rule and misunderstand it, that's not the big 12's problem. The rule is established, and published, and quite transparent. so there's no need to clarify anything. instead, they just changed it to the benefit of a program and called it a clarifcation.

 

[Midnight Toker]

In a 3 way tie with OSU and KSU, which is the most probable scenario, OU would be left out by bothe the old and new rules. It didn’t “screw” OU. It “screwed” KSU. But go ahead and cry if it makes you feel better.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Ah so you acknowledge the rule was changed. That's good. I dont care who a rules change benefits, i care that it happened in november. this is an off-season type of activity. not an in-season change that is precipitated by the success of two teams the big 12 doesn't want to see in their ccg.

Nobody is crying. There's no need to exaggerate my response to this. I'm saying it's peculiar to change established rules in the middle of the season. It's a bush league tactic, just like when the big 10 did it to benefit the real osu a few years back.

 

[Functianalyst]

If everything goes as expected except ISU beats ut then there could be a four way tie between OSU, KSU, ut, and ou. I am not sure how that would resolve itself. Would it go to rule 2 at that point? If so it would be ISU as the common opponent and we would be out?

Since you're adding K-State to the mix, then I assume you mean they beat ISU which then means OSU should be #1 seed since they beat OU, which beat UT which beat K-State. With the rule clarification I think there was enough H2H between the 4 teams.

 

[Osucowboys344]

If the situation was reversed I guarantee you OU fans would have no qualms about this clarification happening. In fact they would be screaming

Nobody cares about people being butthurt, nobody cares about conspiracy theories. completely irrelevant.

I dont care what the rules is. means nothing to me, i only care that it doesn't get changed in november. there's no need to clarify an already existing rule that's there for everyone to see. iif someone reads the rule and misunderstand it, that's not the big 12's problem. The rule is established, and published, and quite transparent. so there's no need to clarify anything. instead, they just changed it to the benefit of a program and called it a clarifcation.

So you would prefer OSU just be put in the championship game if they are tied with OU and KSU.

No explanation needed.