What do I need to be hoping for?

[bgsufalcon24]

There is one mistake in your scenario. You can only use the head-to-head tiebreaker if the the teams tied played each other the EXACT same number of times.

http://www.mac-sports.com/ViewArticle.d ... ID=1148024

Where does it say head to head between three teams can't be used if two teams didn't play each other? It's a loophole in the tie-breakers of us not playing Temple as a divisional game. We will be undefeated in any head-to-head tiebreaker scenario with Temple. Temple can be undefeated if Akron beats Buffalo and Temple beats Akron. Akron would be 0-2 in that scenario and Temple and BG 1-0. Move to tie breaker #2.

Therefore, if us and Temple win out and end up tied for the Division lead, the third tiebreaker is used which is the conference winning percentage of the cross-division teams played.

WTF happened to the second tie-breaker? Why are you skipping it and going to the third? You use you divisional opponents first, then the third and fourth tie-breakers move to cross-divisional opponents. The above scenario is basically the only one where we move to this tie-breaker. The fact that our lone divisional lose would be against bottom-feeder Miami means that we will win this tie-breaker with Temple. The only way Miami finishes ahead of Buffalo would be for Buffalo to lose all three remaining games (@Akr, @ BG, vs Kent) and Miami wins all three of theirs (@ Ball St, @ Tol, and OU). So, that's not likely. Meaning, we will have this tie-breaker over Temple.

I stand by my statement that we will play in the MACC if we win out and Akron loses once to anyone.

WHAM! said the Warthog.

Can't disagree with any of this. Temple would need us to lose, or to have an Akron-2005-esque series of luck to knock us out.

[Redwingtom]

There is one mistake in your scenario. You can only use the head-to-head tiebreaker if the the teams tied played each other the EXACT same number of times.

http://www.mac-sports.com/ViewArticle.d ... ID=1148024

Where does it say head to head between three teams can't be used if two teams didn't play each other? It's a loophole in the tie-breakers of us not playing Temple as a divisional game. We will be undefeated in any head-to-head tiebreaker scenario with Temple. Temple can be undefeated if Akron beats Buffalo and Temple beats Akron. Akron would be 0-2 in that scenario and Temple and BG 1-0. Move to tie breaker #2.

Therefore, if us and Temple win out and end up tied for the Division lead, the third tiebreaker is used which is the conference winning percentage of the cross-division teams played.

WTF happened to the second tie-breaker? Why are you skipping it and going to the third? You use you divisional opponents first, then the third and fourth tie-breakers move to cross-divisional opponents. The above scenario is basically the only one where we move to this tie-breaker. The fact that our lone divisional lose would be against bottom-feeder Miami means that we will win this tie-breaker with Temple. The only way Miami finishes ahead of Buffalo would be for Buffalo to lose all three remaining games (@Akr, @ BG, vs Kent) and Miami wins all three of theirs (@ Ball St, @ Tol, and OU). So, that's not likely. Meaning, we will have this tie-breaker over Temple.

I stand by my statement that we will play in the MACC if we win out and Akron loses once to anyone.

c. If two teams did not play, the second criteria is used to break the tie;

2. Record of tied teams within the division [versus rank order, highest to lowest, of division teams]

Also, I'm skipping over the second criteria [shown above] because I said "If Temple and BG win out" we will have the same division record of 4-1 thereby going to the third tie-breaker of conference winning percentage of the cross-over opponents.

I commission a basketball league at my work and have researched numerous tie-breaker procedures and head-to-head is always thrown out when the teams tied don't play each other the exact same number of times.

If you think about it, would it be fair to put us ahead of Temple in a head-to-head tiebreaker scenario when they never even played us head-to-head?

[Falconfreak90]

[Can't disagree with any of this. Temple would need us to lose, or to have an Akron-2005-esque series of luck to knock us out.

24,

I was talking with players and other fans after the game yesterday about that very thing...the 2005 season when Akron needed about 7 or 8 games to go their way down the stretch to get to the MACC....and it happened.

How about a little payback? I'm feeling a whole lot better than I did 2 weeks ago.

[Warthog]

c. If two teams did not play, the second criteria is used to break the tie;

But Akron, Temple and BG is three teams. The head to head is used to eliminate Akron.

2. Record of tied teams within the division [versus rank order, highest to lowest, of division teams]

Also, I'm skipping over the second criteria [shown above] because I said "If Temple and BG win out" we will have the same division record of 4-1 thereby going to the third tie-breaker of conference winning percentage of the cross-over opponents.

VERSUS RANK ORDER, HIGHEST TO LOWEST OF DIVISION TEAMS. That means they line the teams up from 3 (or 4) to 7 and look at how BG and Temple fared against those teams in order, starting with the third place team. As I said, our only loss in the division is to Miami and Temple's only loss in the division is to Buffalo. If Buffalo finishes in higher ranked order than Miami, which that is a virtual certainty, we will win the tie-breaker with Temple based on the fact we beat Buffalo(if we do )and Temple lost to them.

I commission a basketball league at my work and have researched numerous tie-breaker procedures and head-to-head is always thrown out when the teams tied don't play each other the exact same number of times.

That's great for your league, but this is the MAC and unbalanced schedules and division teams not playing each other. I'll go with the information posted on the MAC website, not your basketball league.

If you think about it, would it be fair to put us ahead of Temple in a head-to-head tiebreaker scenario when they never even played us head-to-head?

If we are tied with multiple teams and we have a better record against all the teams we are tied with it is.

[Redwingtom]

c. If two teams did not play, the second criteria is used to break the tie;

But Akron, Temple and BG is three teams. The head to head is used to eliminate Akron.

2. Record of tied teams within the division [versus rank order, highest to lowest, of division teams]

Also, I'm skipping over the second criteria [shown above] because I said "If Temple and BG win out" we will have the same division record of 4-1 thereby going to the third tie-breaker of conference winning percentage of the cross-over opponents.

VERSUS RANK ORDER, HIGHEST TO LOWEST OF DIVISION TEAMS. That means they line the teams up from 3 (or 4) to 7 and look at how BG and Temple fared against those teams in order, starting with the third place team. As I said, our only loss in the division is to Miami and Temple's only loss in the division is to Buffalo. If Buffalo finishes in higher ranked order than Miami, which that is a virtual certainty, we will win the tie-breaker with Temple based on the fact we beat Buffalo(if we do )and Temple lost to them.

I commission a basketball league at my work and have researched numerous tie-breaker procedures and head-to-head is always thrown out when the teams tied don't play each other the exact same number of times.

That's great for your league, but this is the MAC and unbalanced schedules and division teams not playing each other. I'll go with the information posted on the MAC website, not your basketball league.

If you think about it, would it be fair to put us ahead of Temple in a head-to-head tiebreaker scenario when they never even played us head-to-head?

If we are tied with multiple teams and we have a better record against all the teams we are tied with it is.

I think your analysis about scenario 2, division record is probably correct as I was not paying attention to the rank order thing, but I can GUARANTEE that you are wrong in your analysis of the head-to-head.

If three teams are tied, they all have had to play each other once for the tiebreaker to count. The part I bolded means if two of the teams tied did not play each other you move to scenario 2. It does not mean if only two teams are tied as it is fairly obvious if the two teams tied did not play each other you can't use head-to-head.

And the research I alluded to is in other college football divisions which I applied to how I run the basketball league.

[MarkL]

How about we just hope for Temple to lose, need it or not. Call it an insurance policy.

[Warthog]

If three teams are tied, they all have had to play each other once for the tiebreaker to count. The part I bolded means if two of the teams tied did not play each other you move to scenario 2.

I will still disagree with that. Section 1A says:
"1. Head-to-head competition

a. In the event of a multiple-team (two or more teams) tie, the team with the best head-to-head record amongst the tied teams wins the tie-breaker;"

It makes no mention there regarding two of the three teams not playing each other.

The section you bolded is 1C, and yes, it applies when you get down to BG and Temple being tied after eliminating Akron. And as we have agreed, if it gets to section two between us and Temple, we win the tie-breaker.

But as MarkL says, lets just hope they all lose.

What happens if everyone has 4 losses? Actually, that is possible if Kent can beat Akron or Buffalo or OU beats Akron. I'll go out on a limb and say if we tie for the East with 4 losses because we lost to Toledo to finish the season, we will win all tie-breakers with any other East team.

[kdog27]

If we all have 4 losses I vote to give the East crown to the runner up of the West.

[Falconboy]

As far as I'm concerned we lost the Mac East several weeks ago. It basically is the same deal as last year where we needed others to lose one or more times for us to have a chance on top of us winning all of our remaining games. We have no one to blame for ourselves for predicament.

[transfer2BGSU]

As far as I'm concerned we lost the Mac East several weeks ago.

Thankfully, you are not on the team!

We have no one to blame for ourselves for predicament.

I've been reading your posts for so long that I understand what you were trying to say and actually agree with the sentiment

[bgsufalcon24]

As far as I'm concerned we lost the Mac East several weeks ago.

Thankfully, you are not on the team!

My sentiments exactly. Falconboy, that comment was poorlycoachedbgsu-esque. How can you say we're out of the MAC East race when we've got almost a 1/3 chance of winning it? Your grasp of statistics is poor.

[Redwingtom]

Well, we will just have to wait and see how the MAC settles this, but let me see if I can explain how the MAJORITY of leagues would handle a head-to-head tiebreaker.

Let's say that Akron, BG and Temple all end up tied for the top spot in the East (We throw out Buffalo just for this example ). And let's say that Akron beats Temple. If those things happened, the records of teams in head-to-head play would be as follows:

BG - 1-0
Akron - 1-1
Temple - 0-1

The point I am trying to make is that in this scenario, you can't throw out any team from a head-to-head scenario because the teams did not all play each other as Temple never had the chance to play us. If they had and won all teams would be 1-1 against each other.

Not sure if the MAC tiebreaker procedures goes into any more depth on this, but again, you shouldn't penalize a team and throw them out of a head-to-head tiebreaker with a team they never had a chance to play.

[Warthog]

First off Tom, your scenario there can't happen as that would give Temple 4 losses.

Second, I understand what you are saying, but there is no mention of this in the tie-breaker rules. It covers two teams tying that didn't play head to head to head, but not three.

Third, I would make the point that why should we be penalized because we didn't get the opportunity to beat Temple? Let's say that BG, Temple, and Buffalo tie. We are 1-0, Buffalo is 1-1, Temple is 0-1. We beat the only team we played that we are tied with. While each of the others lost to a team they are tied with? Doesn't that mean we are the better team? It's the old we beat the team you lost to so we are better than you. No one said it was fair, but that is way the schedules and the tie breakers work.

[Redwingtom]

First off Tom, your scenario there can't happen as that would give Temple 4 losses.

Second, I understand what you are saying, but there is no mention of this in the tie-breaker rules. It covers two teams tying that didn't play head to head to head, but not three.

Third, I would make the point that why should we be penalized because we didn't get the opportunity to beat Temple? Let's say that BG, Temple, and Buffalo tie. We are 1-0, Buffalo is 1-1, Temple is 0-1. We beat the only team we played that we are tied with. While each of the others lost to a team they are tied with? Doesn't that mean we are the better team? It's the old we beat the team you lost to so we are better than you. No one said it was fair, but that is way the schedules and the tie breakers work.

1. As I said, this was just a hypothetical.

2. I don't think you are interpreting this correctly. How can they have a procedure to break a tie that does not cover a three way tie? To me, the procedure saying "if two teams did not play" would be interpreted as if two of any number of teams tied did not play each other.

3. Why would you punish Temple for not having a chance to play and beat us?

The logic of we beat Team A who beat Team B so we are better than Team B is just not logical or sensical for that matter. It just does not compute in a definitive tiebreaker rule which any upstanding organization would have in place. So I am 100% confident that the league office would interpret the way I am in throwing out the head-to-head scenario and moving on to the next scenario.

[Lord_Byron]

Rather than the "head-to-head" scenario being discussed, in keeping with recent history, the MAC is much more likely to implement the "chicken-with-no-head" scenario.

In this tie breaker, representatives from each school sit in various parts of a room. A chicken is decapitated in the middle of the room and the school to which it runs without its head is declared the winner.