Discussion on tie breakers.. it sucks..

[HFCS]

Why shouldn't the first tie breaker be "Teams not leaving the Big 12 at the end of the season"?

The more I think about it, why not? I mean it's a TIE. We're talking about tied teams with unbalanced schedules. Shouldn't the criteria edge go to helping the conference?

Don't like it? Then don't try to destroy the conference in backroom deals or don't tie with multiple teams that are not leaving the conference.

 

[clone52]

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.

That sounds reasonable. At first I was thinking it was unfair. Iowa State would be 2-1, OU would be 2-1, OSU would be 1-1 and UT would be 0-2. It seems unfair that OSU didn't get a chance for that 2nd win against UT, but you are right, that does reward the harder schedule in a way.

Its not perfect (What if one of the teams played KSU, KU, WVU and TT, the 4 other decent teams and another one played the bottom teams), but nothing is ever perfect.

 

[clone52]

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?

I don't disagree with you, but if the best common opponent was a terrible team and one of the tied good teams lost to that team, you could make an argument that eliminating them makes a ton of sense.

 

[clone52]

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

Does anyone have the exact text of the original wording versus the current interpretation of it? I thought I saw the original once and I think it had the same logic, just worded in the worst way.

 

[VeloClone]

Does anyone have the exact text of the original wording versus the current interpretation of it? I thought I saw the original once and I think it had the same logic, just worded in the worst way.

I think I found it:

First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three. No more. No less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shalt be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.

 

[Cfinnerty16]

How about we take CW's advice and not worry about this until we beat TexAss?

 

[StLouisClone]

How about we take CW's advice and not worry about this until we beat TexAss?

It's going to get harder to change the tiebreaker rules with each passing day. OSU fans made some noise and got a rule changed in their favor yesterday. ISU fans should be pushing for one more rule change. Strength of schedule should matter. Our win over Texas on Saturday should carry a heck of a lot more weight than OSU's win over Kansas.

 

[Cyrealist]

If we win both games, we just need OSU or OU to lose a game. So It's the probability of beating Texas * probability of beating KSU * probability of OU and OSU NOT going a combined 4-0.

By the SWAG method, I'd put that at about 5%. "So you're saying there's a chance!"