The Home Stretch - Big 12 Championship Scenarios

[Radical Larry 28528]

I’ve heard Kevin Mar gets to decide who’s in the CCG. 

[JBJ 3649]

53 minutes ago, WBT said:

Yes, all of the P4 divisionless 16-team conferences going forward are always going to have ccg scenarios that are as clear as a bell

They need to do RPI in place of the common opponent step.  Easy to calculate, understood, been around for a while.  Rare chance of a next step.

Edited November 19, 2023 by JBJ

[The Tower 362]

11 hours ago, utexas8 said:

 

 

 

[Texas Wahoo 3383]

1 minute ago, The Tower said:

 

 

Lmao 

 

[Js1 85110]

I mean, they are confusing and hard to read. On brand for the Big 12

[Radical Larry 28528]

Also on brand for the AAS. 

[6th Street 6357]

3 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

Lmao 

 

What a dumbass

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I mean, they are confusing and hard to read. On brand for the Big 12

Yes. Which is why davis shouldn’t have been so adamant that they were easy to read and understand, and he had done so accurately. 

[The University 851]

53 minutes ago, 'stache said:

 

idmas. Texas will beat the shit out of the next two opponents.

[Js1 85110]

Just now, Pato del Muerto said:

Yes. Which is why davis shouldn’t have been so adamant that they were easy to read and understand, and he had done so accurately. 

Agreed. You wait to get confirmation from the Big 12 first. Heck, just say Texas has the inside track or something. Don’t be so definitive without confirmation 

[kevwun 15651]

Texas controls its' own destiny and leave it at that.

[LTtxfan 48977]

So I guess Alex Loeb got it right ???

 

[AbeFroman 2114]

14 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

Lmao 

 

 Bro

[The_Great_Hornsby 3329]

The way I see it. Texas wins and we crush whoever we play. The team I would most like to face is OSU. Followed by OU. And I would really prefer to avoid KSU. OSU is the 4th best team in the conference, it would be a gift to play them. 

[NashLonghorn 270]

11 hours ago, LTtxfan said:

Not happy, but Alex Loeb agrees...

AAS is a joke  😬

How does that shit get past the editors?   Seriously they are supposedly the “home town” paper. 

[LOHorn 277]

1 hour ago, 'stache said:

It would make sense to go to record against OU as the highest ranked common opponent, but the rule says The “next highest” opponent meaning below OSU and Texas. That would be both ISU and KSU at 6-3 because the scenario requires ISU to beat KSU to knock them out of the tie. UT is 2-0, OSU is 1-1, so UT wins that two way tie breaker.

Good point. I assume the conference doesn’t see it that way,  but that’s the way it is worded. 

Edited November 19, 2023 by LOHorn

[Rockethorn1978 6061]

24 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

Lmao 

 

[Keef 757]

47 minutes ago, Texas Wahoo said:

Lmao 

 

He also was pretty damn condescending to others who told him the Longhorns' place wasn't secured yet.  Wonder if those tweets have been deleted.

[Huckleberry 32702]

Worse than his previous reporting and attitude is that this mea culpa didn't include the followup question to the Big 12 "why hasn't Texas clinched? Explain the terribly written tiebreaker rules."

[MAUFRAIS 6574]

He also was pretty damn condescending to others who told him the Longhorns' place wasn't secured yet.  Wonder if those tweets have been deleted.

Similar to Bohls when challenged on his report that Herman wouldn’t be fired.

[Js1 85110]

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

Worse than his previous reporting and attitude is that this mea culpa didn't include the followup question to the Big 12 "why hasn't Texas clinched? Explain the terribly written tiebreaker rules."

That too. The follow up would have been “release all the possible scenarios then”

[mdmost 42865]

 

[Surly Bevo 24696]

Experienced Big 12 official explaining conference championship things to new Big 12 official

 

Edited November 19, 2023 by Surly Bevo

[Huckleberry 32702]

Just now, mdmost said:

 

Does nobody know how to report? 

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

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?

[Kwix 2186]

Ok, I know the conference is saying we haven't clinched but they can't read their own fucking rules.

 

So in a 3 way tie with Texas, OU, and OSU

Multiple team tiebreaker rules:

Step 1: get skipped because we did not all play each other.

Step 2: Record against the next highest placed common opponent in the standings.  (This is ISU, which Texas and OU beat, and OSU lost)

 

At this point, you read the intro to the multiple team tiebreaker rules:

"If at any point the multiple-team tie is reduced to two teams, the two-team tie-breaking procedure will be applied."

Then you look at the first line of the 2 team tiebreaker rules:

"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."

 

Seams pretty clear that OU and Texas go in this scenario.

 

 

[satyanash 14281]

43 minutes ago, LTtxfan said:

So I guess Alex Loeb got it right ???

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

 

 

[Js1 85110]

1 minute ago, Kwix said:

Record against the next highest placed common opponent in the standings.

This seems to be where the confusion is, actually. Whether the intent is “highest placed common opponent” as in whoever ends up in first or NEXT highest placed (ie, below both teams)

[Grande Mart 502]

1 minute ago, Kwix said:

Ok, I know the conference is saying we haven't clinched but they can't read their own fucking rules.

 

So in a 3 way tie with Texas, OU, and OSU

Multiple team tiebreaker rules:

Step 1: get skipped because we did not all play each other.

Step 2: Record against the next highest placed common opponent in the standings.  (This is ISU, which Texas and OU beat, and OSU lost)

 

At this point, you read the intro to the multiple team tiebreaker rules:

"If at any point the multiple-team tie is reduced to two teams, the two-team tie-breaking procedure will be applied."

Then you look at the first line of the 2 team tiebreaker rules:

"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."

 

Seams pretty clear that OU and Texas go in this scenario.

 

 

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.

[TheBryMan81 2502]

Alex Loeb explanation

 

 

I think this is correct.

Solution: beat the fuck out of Texas Tech

 

 

[Kwix 2186]

I really don't think the line "If at any point the multiple-team tie is reduced to two teams, the two-team tie-breaking procedure will be applied." means pick a #1 seed then start over.

The 2 team tiebreakers clearly states "If two teams are tied for first place both teams will participate in the championship game"

[Js1 85110]

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

Quote

2. Win percentage against the next highest placed common opponent in the standings (based on record in all games played within the Conference), proceeding through the standings

 

[mdmost 42865]

We're not losing to Texas F'ing Tech. You think Sark won't have the Yormark remarks about winning in Austin on repeat all week. Or the aftermath of the loss last year where our players were getting shoved by those STD carrying mouthbreathers? Or Joey McGuire's mouth running non-stop. The team will be highly motivated to stomp the shit out of Tech. 

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

Closely guarded trade secrets:

kfc blend

coca Cola formulation

big12 tiebreaker interpretation 

[Kwix 2186]

If you read this whole paragraph together:
 

"In the event of a tie between more than two teams, the following procedures will be used. 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."

 

The logical interpretation is:  If 1 team has an advantage, they are in and then start over.  If 2 teams have an advantage, they are both in.

[LTtxfan 48977]

JUST BEAT TECH !!!  🤘

 

[ultimaton 2966]

This is the same place that sold itself as home of the one true champion and then turned around and said: “and this year, our one true champion is Baylor & TCU.”

Clown conference.

[ClubWhatever 12087]

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

[Js1 85110]

Just now, ClubWhatever said:

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

[Laga4 1270]

Just let AI solve it.  

[BigHornedLurker 1893]

12 minutes ago, ClubWhatever said:

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

[Redneck Mutha 7935]

43 minutes ago, mdmost said:

 

*We will have to wait until next weekend, after which the B12 will release its tiebreaker rules that will determine how to fuck Texas out of a CCG berth.

Edited November 19, 2023 by Redneck Mutha

['stache 21774]

23 minutes 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

 

I do t think it’s confusing. Next means next so below the tied teams in the standing. It won’t be record against OU but ISU/KSU. It makes more sense to go to the top of the standing but they’d have to rewrite it for next year. The earlier clarification didn’t change the rule, it was meaningless as written. Removing “next” would be rewriting the rule and won’t happen. Won’t matter anyway. No way you lose to tech.

[TrashMaster G 17388]

1 hour ago, Texas Wahoo said:

Lmao 

Pitiful excuse for a "reporter"

[Js1 85110]

2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I do t think it’s confusing. Next means next so below the tied teams in the standing. It won’t be record against OU but ISU/KSU. It makes more sense to go to the top of the standing but they’d have to rewrite it for next year. The earlier clarification didn’t change the rule, it was meaningless as written. Removing “next” would be rewriting the rule and won’t happen. Won’t matter anyway. No way you lose to tech.

And yet no one seems to be able to interpret it the same 

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Wait, did the big 12 hire the same dumbfuck aggy lawyers that drew up the Jimbo contract? For fucks sake. FUCK THIS CONFERENCE.

[Paul Wesley 3277]

11 minutes ago, Redneck Mutha said:

*We will have to wait until next weekend, after which the B12 will release its tiebreaker rules that will determine how to fuck Texas out of a CCG berth.

Yormark and Weisner have been openly mocking us and cheering against us for YEARS. 

There is no motive at all for them to "clarify" anything this week, when their IDEAL SCENARIO is to have vaguely-written rules that allow them to take ANY teams except Texas. 

Edited November 19, 2023 by Paul Wesley

[TexasMan 10786]

 

['stache 21774]

8 minutes ago, Js1 said:

And yet no one seems to be able to interpret it the same 

People who interpret it without the “next” are wrong.

[idigTexas 2266]

2 hours ago, BlackCat said:

I want OU. These leftover fuckfaces wont even have a dog in the fight as we cropdust the conference on our way out. Plus I doubt it would matter, but if we were to obliterate the only team we lost to it could potentially make a difference in the playoff picture. 

I like this thought, and it comes with the added benefit of giving us the opportunity to avenge our one loss, which may be a small factor in whether we make it into the CFP.  On the other hand, not getting to play OkSt, means they would be the only left behind team with scoreboard over us, courtesy of their win last season.  

Ultimately, I care most about beating Tech.  If that happens, I won't really give a shit who we play.