Big 12 Division Champ Tiebreaker Rules

[Husker Runner]

OFFICIAL TIEBREAKER RULES ARE HERE

 

Divisional Tiebreakers: The following procedure will determine the representative from each division in the event of a tie:

 

If two teams are tied, the winner of the game between the two tied teams shall be the representative

 

If three or more teams are tied, steps 1 through 7 will be followed until a determination is made. If only two teams remain tied after any step, the winner of the game between the two tied teams shall be the representative.

 

1. The records of the three teams will be compared against each other

2. The records of the three teams will be compared within their division

3. The records of the three teams will be compared against the next highest placed teams in their division in order of finish (4, 5 and 6)

4. The records of the three teams will be compared against all common conference opponents.

5. The highest ranked team in the first Bowl Championship Series poll following the completion of Big 12 regular season conference play shall be the representative in the Big 12 Championship Game, unless two of the tied teams are ranked within one spot of the other in the BCS poll. In this case, the head-to-head results of the top two ranked tied teams shall determine the representative in the Big 12 Championship Game.

6. The team with the best overall winning percentage (excluding exempted games) shall be the representative.

7. The representative will be chosen by draw.

 

The South will go to tiebreaker rule #5 between OU, OSU, and Texas A&M.

 

If you read rule #5 literally, it seems to be different than what was probably intended. Consider this scenario:

 

Say that in the BCS rankings tomorrow, OU is #9, Texas A&M is #14, and OSU is #15.

 

I'm sure that the intent of the rule would put OU in the CCG.

 

However, taking the wording literally, since two of the tied teams (Texas A&M and OSU) finish within one spot of each other, then you would look at the head-to-head result of the top two teams (OU and Texas A&M). Texas A&M won that head-to-head, and would go to the CCG.

 

The rule doesn't specifically state that it's only if the two highest ranked teams in the BCS are within one spot of each other.

 

If Texas A&M is one spot ahead of OSU in tomorrow's BCS rankings (very possible), this could be very interesting.

[Sparker]

oh

[Malth]

if OU is 9, TAM is 14, and OSU is 15, then OU is going to the CCG.

 

TAM needs to be ranked within one spot of OU, not OSU

 

Barring something strange happening in the polls, OU is going to the CCG

[JTrain]

OFFICIAL TIEBREAKERS RULES ARE HERE

 

Divisional Tiebreakers: The following procedure will determine the representative from each division in the event of a tie:

 

If two teams are tied, the winner of the game between the two tied teams shall be the representative

 

If three or more teams are tied, steps 1 through 7 will be followed until a determination is made. If only two teams remain tied after any step, the winner of the game between the two tied teams shall be the representative.

 

1. The records of the three teams will be compared against each other

2. The records of the three teams will be compared within their division

3. The records of the three teams will be compared against the next highest placed teams in their division in order of finish (4, 5 and 6)

4. The records of the three teams will be compared against all common conference opponents.

5. The highest ranked team in the first Bowl Championship Series poll following the completion of Big 12 regular season conference play shall be the representative in the Big 12 Championship Game, unless two of the tied teams are ranked within one spot of the other in the BCS poll. In this case, the head-to-head results of the top two ranked tied teams shall determine the representative in the Big 12 Championship Game.

6. The team with the best overall winning percentage (excluding exempted games) shall be the representative.

7. The representative will be chosen by draw.

 

The South will go to tiebreaker rule #5 between OU, OSU, and Texas A&M.

 

If you read rule #5 literally, it seems to be different than what was probably intended. Consider this scenario:

 

Say that in the BCS rankings tomorrow, OU is #9, Texas A&M is #14, and OSU is #15.

 

I'm sure that the intent of the rule would put OU in the CCG.

 

However, taking the wording literally, since two of the tied teams (Texas A&M and OSU) finish within one spot of each other, then you would look at the head-to-head result of the top two teams (OU and Texas A&M). Texas A&M won that head-to-head, and would go to the CCG.

 

The rule doesn't specifically state that it's only if the two highest ranked teams in the BCS are within one spot of each other.

 

If Texas A&M is one spot ahead of OSU in tomorrow's BCS rankings (very possible), this could be very interesting.

 

 

Yeah I noticed the complete lack of care in wording this rule when I read it a couple weeks ago. But I don't think anyone will notice or be big enough douches to challenge it.

[EbylHusker]

The rule doesn't specifically state that it's only if the two highest ranked teams in the BCS are within one spot of each other.

Yes it does...

[Husker Runner]

if OU is 9, TAM is 14, and OSU is 15, then OU is going to the CCG.

 

TAM needs to be ranked within one spot of OU, not OSU

 

Barring something strange happening in the polls, OU is going to the CCG

 

Re: bolded section

 

I'm sure this was the intent, but that's not how the wording actually reads.

[JTrain]

if OU is 9, TAM is 14, and OSU is 15, then OU is going to the CCG.

 

TAM needs to be ranked within one spot of OU, not OSU

 

Barring something strange happening in the polls, OU is going to the CCG

 

According the exact wording of the rules, TAMU should go in that case. It's just very poorly worded. Yes, the intent, as the OP stated, is clearly to only apply this if the top two are within one spot, but they didn't actually state that in the rule.

 

If it turns out like this (I doubt it will anyway... OSU should still be comfortably ahead of TAMU), and TAMU got lawyers involved (which I doubt they would be big enough dicks to do) it could get messy.

 

I think the OP was basically just pointing out that whoever wrote the rule wasn't paying enough attention.

[Husker Runner]

The rule doesn't specifically state that it's only if the two highest ranked teams in the BCS are within one spot of each other.

Yes it does...

 

No, it doesn't.

[EbylHusker]

The rule doesn't specifically state that it's only if the two highest ranked teams in the BCS are within one spot of each other.

Yes it does...

 

No, it doesn't.

No lie... The idea was to see how long we could get people to stare at that wording trying to figure out who was right. As in...it's just as useless as this thread, because we all know what will happen regardless of how poorly the rule is worded.

[Husker Runner]

The rule doesn't specifically state that it's only if the two highest ranked teams in the BCS are within one spot of each other.

Yes it does...

 

No, it doesn't.

No lie... The idea was to see how long we could get people to stare at that wording trying to figure out who was right. As in...it's just as useless as this thread, because we all know what will happen regardless of how poorly the rule is worded.

 

Ummm, I hate to break it to you, but pretty much all threads on a football message board are useless. LOL.

 

I hope the BCS has Texas A&M one spot ahead of OSU tomorrow. Maybe the Aggies would just roll over, but I'd love to see Beebe have to dance around it, and a full challenge by Texas A&M would be awesome.

 

Rule #5 is the "Texas Amendment" the Longhorns pushed through after the old tiebreaker rules went against them in 2008.

[Glendower]

Am I the only one who thinks that it's pretty funny how many posters feel that no one will challenge the outcome of any decision? I think that when you're talking about the possibility of your school being represented in the conference championship, it's rather imperative of the lawyers et al. at that school to get your team in that game. Especially when it's a situation like this-- a 3 way tie where each team has beaten or lost to the other two teams in that tie? This is just begging for challenges, and when the rule is that vaguely worded, I could see this ending up in a week of squabbling with injunctions being sought and on and on.

 

I mean, there are rules in place-- you can't expect anyone to listen to any governing body that just decides that it will selectively ignore rules when it seems like not following them makes more sense. What's the point of the rules, then, if simply ignoring them is a viable option?

[huskernumerouno]

Am I the only one who thinks that it's pretty funny how many posters feel that no one will challenge the outcome of any decision? I think that when you're talking about the possibility of your school being represented in the conference championship, it's rather imperative of the lawyers et al. at that school to get your team in that game. Especially when it's a situation like this-- a 3 way tie where each team has beaten or lost to the other two teams in that tie? This is just begging for challenges, and when the rule is that vaguely worded, I could see this ending up in a week of squabbling with injunctions being sought and on and on.

 

I mean, there are rules in place-- you can't expect anyone to listen to any governing body that just decides that it will selectively ignore rules when it seems like not following them makes more sense. What's the point of the rules, then, if simply ignoring them is a viable option?

Good point

[Hercules]

What I want to know is this:

 

What happens if all 3 teams are within one spot of each other, and the order is OU, A&M, then OSU.

[shyndy]

What I want to know is this:

 

What happens if all 3 teams are within one spot of each other, and the order is OU, A&M, then OSU.

Chuck Norris dies?

[Husker Runner]

This is from the Oklahoman (newspaper):

 

 

Go back and look at this segment of the rule: “unless two of the tied teams are ranked within one spot of the other in the BCS poll. In this case, the head-to-head results of the top two ranked tied teams shall determine the representative in the Big 12 Championship Game.”

 

Now, read it again.

 

The letter of that law does not compute to what was intended. That rule states that if two of the tied teams are ranked within one spot of each other, the head-to-head result of the top two-ranked tied teams will determine the champion. That rule DOES NOT STATE that the two teams within one spot of each other have to be the top two-ranked teams.

 

Big 12 director of communications Bob Burda said the tiebreaker language is accurate but said “the reference to the teams being within one place of each other only applies to the highest and second-highest ranked (Big 12) teams in the final BCS Standings.”

 

Well, I think Burda is right. But that’s not what the rule says. And what is A&M supposed to do if this scenario comes to pass? Let it ride?

 

If I’m OU athletic director Joe Castiglione, I’m a little worried. This whole BCS tiebreaker thing has been one pain in the butt for three years, for no good reason. The BCS standings are a wonderful tiebreaker when results can’t pick a winner. So because of Texas animosity and a lack of attention to detail, we’ve got a potential mess on our hands.