The Home Stretch - Big 12 Championship Scenarios

[cafe society 2841]

1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Has the conference clarified, or is it all guesswork still and they won’t say shit until the games are over and they can sift through to see what they can create with their ambiguity?

This.  The AAS sucks, but it really does look like the Big 12 is moving the goalposts hour by hour trying to contrive a way to keep us out of the CCG.  And I'm not a conspiracy theorist/aggy.

[oh_snap 694]

Honestly, the big12 not clarifying is kind of blessing in disguise. Keeps focus on beating Tech, and not a backdoor entry with a loss. 

[NeverMarryAStripper 21781]

After we win this thing, I hope Sark takes the entire team into the locker room immediately after the eyes and leaves Yormark standing on the field by himself with the trophy.  Then we can play in the CFP with SEC logos on the uniforms

Edited November 19, 2023 by NeverMarryAStripper

[oh_snap 694]

2 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

After we win this thing, I hope Sark takes the entire team into the locker room immediately after the eyes and leaves Yormark standing on the field by himself with the trophy.  Then we can play in the CFP with SEC logos on the uniforms

Nah. I’d prefer to Connor cook him

 

[USNALonghorn 5024]

5 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

After we win this thing, I hope Sark takes the entire team into the locker room immediately after the eyes and leaves Yormark standing on the field by himself with the trophy.  Then we can play in the CFP with SEC logos on the uniforms

Play the game with Velcro’d Big12 logos. Rip them off after and leave them on the ground.

[HornOnTheBayou 8881]

Can't we just get a watery tart to throw a sword at us and solve this whole thing?

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

Just now, HornOnTheBayou said:

Can't we just get a watery tart to throw a sword at us and solve this whole thing?

Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no way to determine a champion

[89Horn 1492]

17 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

After we win this thing, I hope Sark takes the entire team into the locker room immediately after the eyes and leaves Yormark standing on the field by himself with the trophy.  Then we can play in the CFP with SEC logos on the uniforms

I hope Yormark and any other Big 12 admin fucks are not allowed in the stadium, much less on the field.  I want video of them being turned away at the stadium entrance.  Mail the fucking trophy, keep it, whatever.  

[MissingInAction 24822]

[GabrielsHorn 2142]

Such a Mickey Mouse conference. 

[TreatyOak 16150]

[Bullneck 18987]

3 hours ago, LTtxfan said:

So I guess Alex Loeb got it right ???

 

If anyone is wondering:

• ISU is at KState
• BYU is at OkieState
• TCU is at OU

 

2 hours ago, ClubWhatever said:

The big 12 should put out their interpretations of all scenarios pronto. 

The Big XII could have solved most of their problems over the years (Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri, aggy leaving), the stupid tiebreaker in 2008, etc. by just using their heads and being proactive.  But no, they all seem to be Kent Hance level of stupid.  

Their could have been 12 actual teams and two divisions but they opted for the dumbest round robin format imaginable.  

Edited November 19, 2023 by Bullneck

[JBJ 3649]

4 hours ago, TexasMan said:

 

DMN says this results in TX/OSU matchup (win percentage over common opponents).  Says B12 has confirmed Texas hasn't clinched but they can't explain how not.

Edited November 19, 2023 by JBJ

[JBJ 3649]

^^^Tx/OU matchup.  Both TX and OU beat ISU.  Once there's two teams tied, you don't run the scenario over.  The h2h winner becomes #1 seed and other team becomes #2 seed.

Edited November 19, 2023 by JBJ

[BigHornedLurker 1893]

14 minutes ago, JBJ said:

DMN says this results in TX/OSU matchup (win percentage over common opponents).  Says B12 has confirmed Texas hasn't clinched but they can't explain how not.

Busy engaging with lawyers trying to figure out how to screw us 

[Js1 85110]

17 minutes ago, JBJ said:

DMN says this results in TX/OSU matchup (win percentage over common opponents).  Says B12 has confirmed Texas hasn't clinched but they can't explain how not.

Because they don’t fucking know 

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

Just now, Js1 said:

Because they don’t fucking know 

They just know it doesnt, and they’ll figure out how and attempt to manipulate the games accordingly. The more unlikely outcomes are needed, the tougher the job. 

[Bevo14 8274]

Bleh we're in the driver's seat. I'm not going to even think about tiebreaker bullshit this week. At least with the playoff clusterfucker we don't control our own destiny at the moment.

[The_Great_Hornsby 3329]

If we lose to Tech I dont even want to be in the Big12 CCG to be honest. That will be the ultimate gut punch and knowing our luck we would draw OU and get our ass kicked by them and our whole season would turn into a nightmare. Just win Friday and let the big 12 figure out who will be tribute to a Texas sized asskicking in Arlington. 

[alphahydro 332]

this is how i read it, assuming the only scenario at issue is TX, OU, and OSU being tied for first, with ISU being highest ranked common opp for all 3. 

here are the actual rules

There are two sections to the rules -

Section 1 addresses a two way tie (could be a tie for first (two teams at 11-0; issue is seeding) or a tie for second (one team at 11-0; two teams at 10-1; issue is which of the two 10-1 teams get in).  

Section 2 addresses a 3+ team tie (three+ teams at 10-1; issue is which two teams get in)

With 3+ teams (TX, OU, & OSU) tied for first, we start in Section 2.  

When you run through the Section 2 tiebreaker rules, the first tiebreaking rule doesn't apply because TX, OU, and OSU didn't all play each other. 

The second tiebreaking rule is record vs next highest common opponent (ISU).  Against ISU, Texas and OU are 1-0; OSU is 0-1. 

Section 2 says 

After one team has an advantage and is “seeded”, all remaining teams in the multiple-team tiebreaker will repeat the multiple-team tie-breaking procedure. If at any point the multiple-team tie is reduced to two teams, the two-team tie-breaking procedure will be applied.

What Alex Loeb seems to be arguing is that after applying the ISU tiebreaker, you then apply the ORANGE SENTENCE to resolve the remaining two-team tie between TX and OU (per Alex - OU wins that one on head to head) - then you go back and re-run tiebreaking rules between OSU and TX, because all that happened in round 1 of tiebreaking was that OU was seeded #1. 

He's wrong. 

In the Big XII tiebreaking scheme, the only way to apply the TX vs OU head-to-head tiebreaking rule at this point would be to apply the ORANGE SENTENCE and go to Section 1 tiebreaking rules to resolve TX vs OU.  But if you go to to Section 1, it says "if two teams are tied for first place both teams will participate in the championship game and the winner of the head-to-head will be the #1 seed."  Boom.  Done. End of story.

You just can't go that route.  Under these particular rules, you can't get from (a) using the ISU tiebreaker in part 2 of Section 2 to eliminate OSU, to (b) applying a head-to-head tiebreaker to resolve TX vs OU without (c) putting TX and OU in the championship game.   (He might also be thinking that once you get rid of OSU through the ISU tiebreaker, you go back to part 1 of Section 2 to resolve TX/OU, but there is nothing in the rules that supports this reading.)

At best, Loeb could argue that the ORANGE SENTENCE  does not apply after the ISU tiebreaker, because even though OSU lost the Section 2 step 2/ISU tiebreaker, the three-way tie hasn't been reduced to two teams for some reason.  (This is a terrible misreading based on the phrase IF AT ANY POINT).  I can't imagine what the words IF AT ANY POINT could mean here if they wouldn't apply after the ISU tiebreaker.   

I think the problem is someone at the Big XII read the rules too quickly and didn't "run water through the pipes" (or maybe I am an idiot).  They are reading the rules to say, after a tiebreaking rule eliminates one team, you start from the top with the remaining two teams to find the first place team, then start from the top again with the remaining teams.  But the words don't say that at all.  What they say is: 

If you start with four+ teams and get to a tiebreaking rule in section 2 where Team A wins over all the others, you re-run the section 2 rules with the remaining 3+.  (makes sense - you can't use section 1 rules as they make no sense with 3+ teams)

If you start with three teams and get to a tiebreaking rule in section 2 where Team A wins over all the others, you run the section 1 rules with the remaining 2.  (makes sense - down to two teams, you can just run the Section 1 rules)

Our case is a little bit different, it is:

If you start with three teams and get to a tiebreaking rule in section 2 where one team gets eliminated, you run the section 1 rules with the remaining 2. 

but I still think it makes sense the way the rule is written, given the phrase if at any point.

 

[alphahydro 332]

btw, i agree it would suck to lose to tech, etc.  

my point is - reading what other people have said, it sounded like there was a problem with the rules or the rules were super ambiguous.  then i went and looked at the rules and i think they are clear enough. 

i think the problem is the big xii is just pulling something out of their ass that is totally unsupported by the language of the rules. 

unless i am missing something or there is a chain of results next weekend we haven't considered. 

[Neonmoon 38127]

Soooo…we are clinched? I’m so confused 

[Js1 85110]

Just now, Neonmoon said:

Soooo…we are clinched? I’m so confused 

The big 12 says no. But don’t ask why, they won’t tell you 

[Treefidy 1463]

5 hours ago, satyanash said:

This post from Reddit claims that a Kansas State win is not enough to guarantee a Big 12 title berth for Texas

 

 

This guy isn’t reading correctly, it says in the tie scenario of a team beat each of the other tied teams they advance, not some of the each tied teams.

 

5 hours ago, Js1 said:

Alex says highest ranked common opponent, Big 12 says the “next” highest. Not THE highest. This is the confusion and is so poorly worded

 

By wording and by reason, if OU got the #1 seed and it come down to OSU/UT I think there’s something to the poorly worded rules where it says 

“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)”

to me this contradicts “next” which means coming after.   OU at #1 seed has left the chat, those tied for 2 haven’t played, so we should move on to next.  But they fuck it up with more words.

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1291]

1 hour ago, alphahydro said:

btw, i agree it would suck to lose to tech, etc.  

my point is - reading what other people have said, it sounded like there was a problem with the rules or the rules were super ambiguous.  then i went and looked at the rules and i think they are clear enough. 

i think the problem is the big xii is just pulling something out of their ass that is totally unsupported by the language of the rules. 

unless i am missing something or there is a chain of results next weekend we haven't considered. 

Yeah, the Big 12 has already changed the rule once. What stops them from changing the rules again to put whoever they want into the game?

[EZ$ 2102]

Whatever happened to taking the two highest ranked playoff teams??

[NashLonghorn 270]

7 hours ago, Grande Mart said:

For the Big 12 Office, this is the concern, working overtime trying to find ways to reinterpret the rules to not allow this to happen.

Just win the fucking game on Friday.  Easy Peasy.

[ClubWhatever 12087]

This shit will most likely have to be explained in a legal context at some point if somebody thinks they were screwed.  They should explain it now.  There are only a handful of scenarios so it's not a hard ask - if they understand their own rules. 

Edited November 20, 2023 by ClubWhatever

[Kwix 2186]

1 hour ago, alphahydro said:

this is how i read it, assuming the only scenario at issue is TX, OU, and OSU being tied for first, with ISU being highest ranked common opp for all 3. 

here are the actual rules

There are two sections to the rules -

Section 1 addresses a two way tie (could be a tie for first (two teams at 11-0; issue is seeding) or a tie for second (one team at 11-0; two teams at 10-1; issue is which of the two 10-1 teams get in).  

Section 2 addresses a 3+ team tie (three+ teams at 10-1; issue is which two teams get in)

With 3+ teams (TX, OU, & OSU) tied for first, we start in Section 2.  

When you run through the Section 2 tiebreaker rules, the first tiebreaking rule doesn't apply because TX, OU, and OSU didn't all play each other. 

The second tiebreaking rule is record vs next highest common opponent (ISU).  Against ISU, Texas and OU are 1-0; OSU is 0-1. 

Section 2 says 

After one team has an advantage and is “seeded”, all remaining teams in the multiple-team tiebreaker will repeat the multiple-team tie-breaking procedure. If at any point the multiple-team tie is reduced to two teams, the two-team tie-breaking procedure will be applied.

What Alex Loeb seems to be arguing is that after applying the ISU tiebreaker, you then apply the ORANGE SENTENCE to resolve the remaining two-team tie between TX and OU (per Alex - OU wins that one on head to head) - then you go back and re-run tiebreaking rules between OSU and TX, because all that happened in round 1 of tiebreaking was that OU was seeded #1. 

He's wrong. 

In the Big XII tiebreaking scheme, the only way to apply the TX vs OU head-to-head tiebreaking rule at this point would be to apply the ORANGE SENTENCE and go to Section 1 tiebreaking rules to resolve TX vs OU.  But if you go to to Section 1, it says "if two teams are tied for first place both teams will participate in the championship game and the winner of the head-to-head will be the #1 seed."  Boom.  Done. End of story.

You just can't go that route.  Under these particular rules, you can't get from (a) using the ISU tiebreaker in part 2 of Section 2 to eliminate OSU, to (b) applying a head-to-head tiebreaker to resolve TX vs OU without (c) putting TX and OU in the championship game.   (He might also be thinking that once you get rid of OSU through the ISU tiebreaker, you go back to part 1 of Section 2 to resolve TX/OU, but there is nothing in the rules that supports this reading.)

At best, Loeb could argue that the ORANGE SENTENCE  does not apply after the ISU tiebreaker, because even though OSU lost the Section 2 step 2/ISU tiebreaker, the three-way tie hasn't been reduced to two teams for some reason.  (This is a terrible misreading based on the phrase IF AT ANY POINT).  I can't imagine what the words IF AT ANY POINT could mean here if they wouldn't apply after the ISU tiebreaker.   

I think the problem is someone at the Big XII read the rules too quickly and didn't "run water through the pipes" (or maybe I am an idiot).  They are reading the rules to say, after a tiebreaking rule eliminates one team, you start from the top with the remaining two teams to find the first place team, then start from the top again with the remaining teams.  But the words don't say that at all.  What they say is: 

If you start with four+ teams and get to a tiebreaking rule in section 2 where Team A wins over all the others, you re-run the section 2 rules with the remaining 3+.  (makes sense - you can't use section 1 rules as they make no sense with 3+ teams)

If you start with three teams and get to a tiebreaking rule in section 2 where Team A wins over all the others, you run the section 1 rules with the remaining 2.  (makes sense - down to two teams, you can just run the Section 1 rules)

Our case is a little bit different, it is:

If you start with three teams and get to a tiebreaking rule in section 2 where one team gets eliminated, you run the section 1 rules with the remaining 2. 

but I still think it makes sense the way the rule is written, given the phrase if at any point.

 

This it correct. Once the 3 way bumps to the 2 way, those 2 teams are both in. Done. 

[Huckleberry 32702]

7 minutes ago, Kwix said:

This it correct. Once the 3 way bumps to the 2 way, those 2 teams are both in. Done. 

This is how it should be but the language of the tiebreaker rules does support the other interpretation. It says that once "one team gains an advantage and is seeded" then they go to the other teams. But then it says compare those to the "next highest" teams. The published tiebreaker rules are a complete and total mess. 

[JBJ 3649]

2 hours ago, alphahydro said:

this is how i read it, assuming the only scenario at issue is TX, OU, and OSU being tied for first, with ISU being highest ranked common opp for all 3. 

here are the actual rules

There are two sections to the rules -

Section 1 addresses a two way tie (could be a tie for first (two teams at 11-0; issue is seeding) or a tie for second (one team at 11-0; two teams at 10-1; issue is which of the two 10-1 teams get in).  

Section 2 addresses a 3+ team tie (three+ teams at 10-1; issue is which two teams get in)

With 3+ teams (TX, OU, & OSU) tied for first, we start in Section 2.  

When you run through the Section 2 tiebreaker rules, the first tiebreaking rule doesn't apply because TX, OU, and OSU didn't all play each other. 

The second tiebreaking rule is record vs next highest common opponent (ISU).  Against ISU, Texas and OU are 1-0; OSU is 0-1. 

Section 2 says 

After one team has an advantage and is “seeded”, all remaining teams in the multiple-team tiebreaker will repeat the multiple-team tie-breaking procedure. If at any point the multiple-team tie is reduced to two teams, the two-team tie-breaking procedure will be applied.

What Alex Loeb seems to be arguing is that after applying the ISU tiebreaker, you then apply the ORANGE SENTENCE to resolve the remaining two-team tie between TX and OU (per Alex - OU wins that one on head to head) - then you go back and re-run tiebreaking rules between OSU and TX, because all that happened in round 1 of tiebreaking was that OU was seeded #1. 

He's wrong. 

In the Big XII tiebreaking scheme, the only way to apply the TX vs OU head-to-head tiebreaking rule at this point would be to apply the ORANGE SENTENCE and go to Section 1 tiebreaking rules to resolve TX vs OU.  But if you go to to Section 1, it says "if two teams are tied for first place both teams will participate in the championship game and the winner of the head-to-head will be the #1 seed."  Boom.  Done. End of story.

You just can't go that route.  Under these particular rules, you can't get from (a) using the ISU tiebreaker in part 2 of Section 2 to eliminate OSU, to (b) applying a head-to-head tiebreaker to resolve TX vs OU without (c) putting TX and OU in the championship game.   (He might also be thinking that once you get rid of OSU through the ISU tiebreaker, you go back to part 1 of Section 2 to resolve TX/OU, but there is nothing in the rules that supports this reading.)

At best, Loeb could argue that the ORANGE SENTENCE  does not apply after the ISU tiebreaker, because even though OSU lost the Section 2 step 2/ISU tiebreaker, the three-way tie hasn't been reduced to two teams for some reason.  (This is a terrible misreading based on the phrase IF AT ANY POINT).  I can't imagine what the words IF AT ANY POINT could mean here if they wouldn't apply after the ISU tiebreaker.   

I think the problem is someone at the Big XII read the rules too quickly and didn't "run water through the pipes" (or maybe I am an idiot).  They are reading the rules to say, after a tiebreaking rule eliminates one team, you start from the top with the remaining two teams to find the first place team, then start from the top again with the remaining teams.  But the words don't say that at all.  What they say is: 

If you start with four+ teams and get to a tiebreaking rule in section 2 where Team A wins over all the others, you re-run the section 2 rules with the remaining 3+.  (makes sense - you can't use section 1 rules as they make no sense with 3+ teams)

If you start with three teams and get to a tiebreaking rule in section 2 where Team A wins over all the others, you run the section 1 rules with the remaining 2.  (makes sense - down to two teams, you can just run the Section 1 rules)

Our case is a little bit different, it is:

If you start with three teams and get to a tiebreaking rule in section 2 where one team gets eliminated, you run the section 1 rules with the remaining 2. 

but I still think it makes sense the way the rule is written, given the phrase if at any point.

 

The other interpretation is that the "vs common opponents" section gets run through all the way and seeds: OSU #3 loss to ISU, who was beaten by both OU and TX and Texas gets seeded #1 for win vs KU who beat OU.  There is no jumping around sections at that point.

[Pancho 44479]

Just released from the conference? 

 

 

[Mother mopar 3303]

The big 12 says no. But don’t ask why, they won’t tell you 

Seems legit.

[chad.ihrig 577]

Quick, someone who wants to read and such: are we in with a loss or no?

[satyanash 14281]

5 minutes ago, chad.ihrig said:

Quick, someone who wants to read and such: are we in with a loss or no?

If we lose, we're still in if two of blOU/Okie Lite/KSU lose. Otherwise, clusterfuck. Naturally the statement makes no attempt to explain said clusterfuck.

Edited November 20, 2023 by satyanash

[Js1 85110]

[The Hot Dog Buffet 1291]

5 minutes ago, satyanash said:

If we lose, we're still in if two of blOU/Okie Lite/KSU lose. Otherwise, clusterfuck. Naturally the statement makes no attempt to explain said clusterfuck.

If they explained it now, it would be harder to make it up as they go.

[Huckleberry 32702]

5 minutes ago, satyanash said:

If we lose, we're still in if two of blOU/Okie Lite/KSU lose. Otherwise, clusterfuck. Naturally the statement makes no attempt to explain said clusterfuck.

Exactly. They basically released a statement saying they still have no clue what the tiebreaker says. They're hoping it doesn't matter. 

[Js1 85110]

Just now, Huckleberry said:

Exactly. They basically released a statement saying they still have no clue what the tiebreaker says. They're hoping it doesn't matter. 

“We didn’t want to do our homework, so here’s the bare minimum. Maybe we’ll explain more on Friday”

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

I thought a ksu win got us in. Now they need to lose?

[The_Great_Hornsby 3329]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

Exactly. They basically released a statement saying they still have no clue what the tiebreaker says. They're hoping it doesn't matter. 

We may get ref help instead of ref fucked this week all so the Big 12 doesn't have to get embarrassed nationally with their shitty tiebreakers? Count me in!

[Horn80 6075]

2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Soooo…we are clinched? I’m so confused 

Sums it up…..

[Huckleberry 32702]

1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I thought a ksu win got us in. Now they need to lose?

They basically ignored tiebreaker situations involving us. That scenario where they say we clinch with a loss is the scenario where only one other team finishes 7-2 in conference. So obviously we're in. 

[Levi 2576]

25 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Just released from the conference? 

 

 

That last bullet point is a total cluster fuck

[Coelenterate Fuccboi 13010]

3 hours ago, alphahydro said:

this is how i read it, assuming the only scenario at issue is TX, OU, and OSU being tied for first, with ISU being highest ranked common opp for all 3. 

here are the actual rules

There are two sections to the rules -

Section 1 addresses a two way tie (could be a tie for first (two teams at 11-0; issue is seeding) or a tie for second (one team at 11-0; two teams at 10-1; issue is which of the two 10-1 teams get in).  

Section 2 addresses a 3+ team tie (three+ teams at 10-1; issue is which two teams get in)

With 3+ teams (TX, OU, & OSU) tied for first, we start in Section 2.  

When you run through the Section 2 tiebreaker rules, the first tiebreaking rule doesn't apply because TX, OU, and OSU didn't all play each other. 

The second tiebreaking rule is record vs next highest common opponent (ISU).  Against ISU, Texas and OU are 1-0; OSU is 0-1. 

Section 2 says 

After one team has an advantage and is “seeded”, all remaining teams in the multiple-team tiebreaker will repeat the multiple-team tie-breaking procedure. If at any point the multiple-team tie is reduced to two teams, the two-team tie-breaking procedure will be applied.

What Alex Loeb seems to be arguing is that after applying the ISU tiebreaker, you then apply the ORANGE SENTENCE to resolve the remaining two-team tie between TX and OU (per Alex - OU wins that one on head to head) - then you go back and re-run tiebreaking rules between OSU and TX, because all that happened in round 1 of tiebreaking was that OU was seeded #1. 

He's wrong. 

In the Big XII tiebreaking scheme, the only way to apply the TX vs OU head-to-head tiebreaking rule at this point would be to apply the ORANGE SENTENCE and go to Section 1 tiebreaking rules to resolve TX vs OU.  But if you go to to Section 1, it says "if two teams are tied for first place both teams will participate in the championship game and the winner of the head-to-head will be the #1 seed."  Boom.  Done. End of story.

You just can't go that route.  Under these particular rules, you can't get from (a) using the ISU tiebreaker in part 2 of Section 2 to eliminate OSU, to (b) applying a head-to-head tiebreaker to resolve TX vs OU without (c) putting TX and OU in the championship game.   (He might also be thinking that once you get rid of OSU through the ISU tiebreaker, you go back to part 1 of Section 2 to resolve TX/OU, but there is nothing in the rules that supports this reading.)

At best, Loeb could argue that the ORANGE SENTENCE  does not apply after the ISU tiebreaker, because even though OSU lost the Section 2 step 2/ISU tiebreaker, the three-way tie hasn't been reduced to two teams for some reason.  (This is a terrible misreading based on the phrase IF AT ANY POINT).  I can't imagine what the words IF AT ANY POINT could mean here if they wouldn't apply after the ISU tiebreaker.   

I think the problem is someone at the Big XII read the rules too quickly and didn't "run water through the pipes" (or maybe I am an idiot).  They are reading the rules to say, after a tiebreaking rule eliminates one team, you start from the top with the remaining two teams to find the first place team, then start from the top again with the remaining teams.  But the words don't say that at all.  What they say is: 

If you start with four+ teams and get to a tiebreaking rule in section 2 where Team A wins over all the others, you re-run the section 2 rules with the remaining 3+.  (makes sense - you can't use section 1 rules as they make no sense with 3+ teams)

If you start with three teams and get to a tiebreaking rule in section 2 where Team A wins over all the others, you run the section 1 rules with the remaining 2.  (makes sense - down to two teams, you can just run the Section 1 rules)

Our case is a little bit different, it is:

If you start with three teams and get to a tiebreaking rule in section 2 where one team gets eliminated, you run the section 1 rules with the remaining 2. 

but I still think it makes sense the way the rule is written, given the phrase if at any point.

 

Shit, I’m not reading all that, and it doesn’t surprise me that the Big 12 doesn’t want to either.

[Neonmoon 38127]

29 minutes ago, Pancho said:

Just released from the conference? 

 

 

Last bullet point = we don’t know either 

[mdleast 8262]

For what it’s worth, DirecTV already has us as a lock

[JFKFC 4878]

3 hours ago, alphahydro said:

this is how i read it, assuming the only scenario at issue is TX, OU, and OSU being tied for first, with ISU being highest ranked common opp for all 3. 

here are the actual rules

There are two sections to the rules -

Section 1 addresses a two way tie (could be a tie for first (two teams at 11-0; issue is seeding) or a tie for second (one team at 11-0; two teams at 10-1; issue is which of the two 10-1 teams get in).  

Section 2 addresses a 3+ team tie (three+ teams at 10-1; issue is which two teams get in)

With 3+ teams (TX, OU, & OSU) tied for first, we start in Section 2.  

When you run through the Section 2 tiebreaker rules, the first tiebreaking rule doesn't apply because TX, OU, and OSU didn't all play each other. 

The second tiebreaking rule is record vs next highest common opponent (ISU).  Against ISU, Texas and OU are 1-0; OSU is 0-1. 

Section 2 says 

After one team has an advantage and is “seeded”, all remaining teams in the multiple-team tiebreaker will repeat the multiple-team tie-breaking procedure. If at any point the multiple-team tie is reduced to two teams, the two-team tie-breaking procedure will be applied.

What Alex Loeb seems to be arguing is that after applying the ISU tiebreaker, you then apply the ORANGE SENTENCE to resolve the remaining two-team tie between TX and OU (per Alex - OU wins that one on head to head) - then you go back and re-run tiebreaking rules between OSU and TX, because all that happened in round 1 of tiebreaking was that OU was seeded #1. 

He's wrong. 

In the Big XII tiebreaking scheme, the only way to apply the TX vs OU head-to-head tiebreaking rule at this point would be to apply the ORANGE SENTENCE and go to Section 1 tiebreaking rules to resolve TX vs OU.  But if you go to to Section 1, it says "if two teams are tied for first place both teams will participate in the championship game and the winner of the head-to-head will be the #1 seed."  Boom.  Done. End of story.

You just can't go that route.  Under these particular rules, you can't get from (a) using the ISU tiebreaker in part 2 of Section 2 to eliminate OSU, to (b) applying a head-to-head tiebreaker to resolve TX vs OU without (c) putting TX and OU in the championship game.   (He might also be thinking that once you get rid of OSU through the ISU tiebreaker, you go back to part 1 of Section 2 to resolve TX/OU, but there is nothing in the rules that supports this reading.)

At best, Loeb could argue that the ORANGE SENTENCE  does not apply after the ISU tiebreaker, because even though OSU lost the Section 2 step 2/ISU tiebreaker, the three-way tie hasn't been reduced to two teams for some reason.  (This is a terrible misreading based on the phrase IF AT ANY POINT).  I can't imagine what the words IF AT ANY POINT could mean here if they wouldn't apply after the ISU tiebreaker.   

I think the problem is someone at the Big XII read the rules too quickly and didn't "run water through the pipes" (or maybe I am an idiot).  They are reading the rules to say, after a tiebreaking rule eliminates one team, you start from the top with the remaining two teams to find the first place team, then start from the top again with the remaining teams.  But the words don't say that at all.  What they say is: 

If you start with four+ teams and get to a tiebreaking rule in section 2 where Team A wins over all the others, you re-run the section 2 rules with the remaining 3+.  (makes sense - you can't use section 1 rules as they make no sense with 3+ teams)

If you start with three teams and get to a tiebreaking rule in section 2 where Team A wins over all the others, you run the section 1 rules with the remaining 2.  (makes sense - down to two teams, you can just run the Section 1 rules)

Our case is a little bit different, it is:

If you start with three teams and get to a tiebreaking rule in section 2 where one team gets eliminated, you run the section 1 rules with the remaining 2. 

but I still think it makes sense the way the rule is written, given the phrase if at any point.

 

[Guadaloopy 10925]

So what do we tell the coaches?

[Radical Larry 28529]

They don’t know shit about fuck.