tie breakers

[OrangeFanatic2]

You've seen multiple people who viewed the rule differently...and for some reason teh big 12 didnt like that so they needed to correct it?

what business is it of the big 12s that someone cant read the rules correctly? not their problem. they determine who makes it to the ccg based on their own rules on the books. the fact that some random cant figure it out is irrelevant. they didnt clarify, they changed it because they saw that with the rules as as they were constituted would possibly have kept osu out of hte ccg despite beating two teams theyre tied with.

No, they needed to clarify exactly what it meant in the current scenario due to how confused everyone was. If you wanna say they failed not having it spelled out exactly from the jump, then that 100% correct. But to say it’s a complete rule change mid season is false.

 

[OrangeFanatic2]

nothing wrong with that, but you at least recognize the fact that a rules change in november that doesn't personally bother you because it benefits you.

I’m for what’s right man, period. If Ok St were to lose one of these next two and end up in some crazy tie where Ou gets in somehow, you won’t catch me complaining. But the scenario that we’re currently in, Oklahoma State 100% is the team that should be in. Plain and simple, I don’t care who benefits. What’s right is right.

 

[Midnight Toker]

Yes, it does. As I have said before

This is what the first criteria 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.”

This is my thought. The second sentence of #1 is poorly worded. In my opinion it reads,
Head-to-head (best cumulative win percentage in games among the tied teams). If not, then every tied team has played each other and their percentages are the same, then go to step 2.

How would this be any different from previously?

Sounds like they should have done a better job the first time around and figured that it was pretty badly worded months ago. now 2 weeks before it's implemented

 

[Midnight Toker]

I’m for what’s right man, period. If Ok St were to lose one of these next two and end up in some crazy tie where Ou gets in somehow, you won’t catch me complaining. But the scenario that we’re currently in, Oklahoma State 100% is the team that should be in. Plain and simple, I don’t care who benefits. What’s right is right.

i'm for what's right too and what's right is agreed and established upon during the offseason, not in November when you realize someone might be screwed by those same rules that everyone agreed to.

 

[Midnight Toker]

No, they needed to clarify exactly what it meant in the current scenario due to how confused everyone was. If you wanna say they failed not having it spelled out exactly from the jump, then that 100% correct. But to say it’s a complete rule change mid season is false.

So, nobody was confused when they drafted the tie breaker rules, nobody was confused all throughout the season until 2 weeks before they might have to be implemented. It's not false, it's literally a change to the established process in November, which is just past mid season

 

[Midnight Toker]

The way you post is psychotic

Cool, any comment on what I said though- do you agree, disagree? do you random think peoples preferences matter or do the rules matter more?

"It doesnt matter what i prefer. it only matters what the agreed upon established tie breaker rules are and how they dictate the two teams to play in the ccg."

 

[Midnight Toker]

That is completely unrelated to what I posted Mr “I never do that.”

you talked about people politicking hard core in 2008. So my response is quite related. the politicking meant nothing because the rules were already in place.

 

[Midnight Toker]

Clarify: 1. make (a statement or situation) less confused and more clearly comprehensible

Change: 1. make (someone or something) different; alter or modify
2. replace (something) with something else, especially something of the same kind that is newer or better;

Yes, it was modified, i.e. changed.

 

[Midnight Toker]

Baloney. If OU had beat OSU, KU and KSU and lost a chance to go to the CCG because OSU hadn’t played one of the 3 you would be screaming bloody murder. That’s your nature. Don’t try taking the high road now. You have way too many years of posting here to change now


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Youre projecting.

There's No reason to scream bloody murder. if the established rules dont benefit my team, tough luck for me. that's how it is. the only thing i dont like is a rules change in november as opposed to offseason. regardless of who it benefits.

 

[Midnight Toker]

The way the rule is written now does not mean anything. It literally follows no interpretation made to date. A clarification is required.

it took this long to figure out the established tie breaker rule "does not mean anything" ? so they just made it up and everyone signed off on it anyway? hmm. tough luck then. everyone agreed to it for a reason.

 

[Stillwaterman]

You've seen multiple people who viewed the rule differently...and for some reason teh big 12 didnt like that so they needed to correct it?

what business is it of the big 12s that someone cant read the rules correctly? not their problem. they determine who makes it to the ccg based on their own rules on the books. the fact that some random cant figure it out is irrelevant. they didnt clarify, they changed it because they saw that with the rules as as they were constituted would possibly have kept osu out of hte ccg despite beating two teams theyre tied with.

Go take a look at the rule on their website. Not one word changed. All they did today was tell us that head-to-head is the first tiebreaker. Which is the way it poorly reads. The way it reads now (and always has) does NOT say what many interpreted it to say.

 

[Midnight Toker]

Go take a look at the rule on their website. Not one word changed. All they did today was tell us that head-to-head is the first tiebreaker. Which is the way it poorly reads. The way it reads now (and always has) does NOT say what many interpreted it to say.

They could have just done that after the season concluded. other people's interpretations are irrelevant. it matters only what the conference says.

 

[Midnight Toker]

It was a bad rule and needed to be changed. They had it wrong, recognized it and made it right. End of story!

This is perfectly acceptable, during the off season only. not when we are 2 weeks away from implementing tie breakers after realizing, "oops a team who beat two others might lose a tie breaker to them"

 

[Stillwaterman]

it took this long to figure out the established tie breaker rule "does not mean anything" ? so they just made it up and everyone signed off on it anyway? hmm. tough luck then. everyone agreed to it.

Not one person can make a firm conclusion of what the 2nd sentence of rule #1 means. All they did today was state that the first sentence is the defining factor. Just because assumptions were made, and people took off with it does not mean those assumptions had any merit.

 

[Duke Silver]

Cool, any comment on what I said though- do you agree, disagree? do you random think peoples preferences matter or do the rules matter more?

"It doesnt matter what i prefer. it only matters what the agreed upon established tie breaker rules are and how they dictate the two teams to play in the ccg."

Whatever. You don’t deserve a real response because you are psychotic

 

[Midnight Toker]

Not one person can make a firm conclusion of what the 2nd sentence of rule #1 means. All they did today was state that the first sentence is the defining factor. Just because assumptions were made, and people took off with it does not mean those assumptions had any merit.

So everyone agreed to rules they dont understand. Cool.
I agree about people's assumptions- they are irrelevant, and would have been on the day the tie breakers were enacted. becasue the rules were already in place regardless of the fact that tom dick and harry couldnt figure it out. the big 12 had it figured it already with the schools who signed off on them

 

[orngblkzebra]

Yes, it was modified, i.e. changed.

Go take a look at the rule on their website. Not one word changed. All they did today was tell us that head-to-head is the first tiebreaker. Which is the way it poorly reads. The way it reads now (and always has) does NOT say what many interpreted it to say.

Please provide proof of a discernable "change" vs simply clarifying what is already written...the change you think happened and keep saying "should happen after the season" will likely be done...after the season.
Today was simply a clarification of what is written and approved.

 

[Midnight Toker]

Whatever. You don’t deserve a real response because you are psychotic

Again, very cool.

But, any comment on what I said though- do you agree, disagree? do you think random peoples preferences matter or do the rules matter more?

"It doesnt matter what i prefer. it only matters what the agreed upon established tie breaker rules are and how they dictate the two teams to play in the ccg."

 

[Midnight Toker]

Please provide proof of a discernable "change" vs simply clarifying what is already written...the change you think happened and keep saying "should happen after the season" will likely be done...after the season.
Today was simply a clarification of what is written and approved.

The one that would have screwed OSU in a tie breaker scenario involving ou and ku.

 

[Duke Silver]

Again, very cool.

But, any comment on what I said though- do you agree, disagree? do you think random peoples preferences matter or do the rules matter more?

"It doesnt matter what i prefer. it only matters what the agreed upon established tie breaker rules are and how they dictate the two teams to play in the ccg."

Look at yourself. We have to read like 10 posts. None of them matter. You have to have the last word. Almost like you think ou won.