What do I need to be hoping for?

thewebboy · Post by **thewebboy** » Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:24 pm

Anybody feel like emailing the MAC office to get a definitive answer on the tie-breaker?

My head hurts.

footballguy51 · Post by **footballguy51** » Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:43 pm

Redwingtom wrote: 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 sensible 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.

Technically, it is logical. If we beat Team A and Team A beat Team B, then this forms the inequality string We > Team A > Team B. Therefore, We > Team B. That's simple math, hence logic.

JohnnySwoop '85 · Post by **JohnnySwoop '85** » Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:44 pm

Here, this will help explain stuff a little more. Note the record you need, make your own east representative assumptions of who will be in MACC and what there record will be coming out of a MACC against this years west reps, and also see the comment from Deputy Gennarelli

(as cited in the MAC Report Online) which is also available in full write up via another thread. It should be stated that VDub did not start thread as he is now busy at work.

"Remember last season when Miami entered the MAC title game at 6-6 and lost? Despite being MAC East champs, the RedHawks could not go bowling with a 6-7 record. A similar fate could await this year’s representative, so securing a seventh victory prior to entering the MAC championship game becomes critical.

If the MAC East representative enters the MAC championship game no worse than 7-5 they will go bowling. Likewise if the MAC East champ comes in 6-6 and pulls off a victory in the MAC championship game, they will go bowling as well.

Why?

Keep in mind that the MAC, as confirmed to MAC Report Online by MAC Deputy Commissioner Bob Gennarelli, guarantees that its two divisional winners, assuming each remain bowl eligible of course, will be awarded with bowl invitations to two of the MAC’s three contracted bowl games.

That of course potentially opens up a whole different can of worms.

With the MAC having as many as six teams possibly becoming bowl eligible by season’s end, it would mean that other MAC squads with better records than the MAC East champ could potentially be sitting at home with only one other guaranteed bowl being available… unless a couple of other bowls open up because of a conference not being able to supply a bowl-eligible team to its contracted bowl.

Stay tuned…the plot will surely thicken."

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:04 pm

Redwingtom wrote: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.

Read the procedures in order. You are skipping to 1C, when 1A can simply be used when three teams are tied.

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

Because they had a chance to beat Buffalo and they didn't and we did. And Buffalo is a much better team than Miami, as the standings at the end of the season will show. It pretty simple.

We can discuss the validity of the tie-breaker system for the next three weeks. But however you think they should be interpreted, the fact is that if we win out and Akron loses once to anyone, we will play in the MACC.

VDub26Falcon · Post by **VDub26Falcon** » Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:08 pm

Just. Win. Every. Game.

Redwingtom · Post by **Redwingtom** » Mon Nov 10, 2008 2:59 pm

Warthog wrote:Because they had a chance to beat Buffalo and they didn't and we did. And Buffalo is a much better team than Miami, as the standings at the end of the season will show. It pretty simple.

But we lost to Miami!!!

Temple won at Miami 28-10.

Regardless, knowing how screwy the MAC is, it would not surprise me at all for them to use a flawed procedure as you interpret.

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Mon Nov 10, 2008 4:13 pm

Redwingtom wrote:
Warthog wrote:Because they had a chance to beat Buffalo and they didn't and we did. And Buffalo is a much better team than Miami, as the standings at the end of the season will show. It pretty simple.
But we lost to Miami!!!

Temple won at Miami 28-10.

Regardless, knowing how screwy the MAC is, it would not surprise me at all for them to use a flawed procedure as you interpret.

Exactly, we lost to the last place team, which means we beat all the good teams which makes us the better team than Temple. At least according to the MAC tie-breakers.

Redwingtom · Post by **Redwingtom** » Mon Nov 10, 2008 4:59 pm

Warthog wrote:
Redwingtom wrote:
Warthog wrote:Because they had a chance to beat Buffalo and they didn't and we did. And Buffalo is a much better team than Miami, as the standings at the end of the season will show. It pretty simple.
But we lost to Miami!!!

Temple won at Miami 28-10.

Regardless, knowing how screwy the MAC is, it would not surprise me at all for them to use a flawed procedure as you interpret.
Exactly, we lost to the last place team, which means we beat all the good teams which makes us the better team than Temple. At least according to the MAC tie-breakers.

Although one thing I just realized, the .pdf file on the MAC website is for the 2007 tiebreak procedures, which I believe last year only division games counted and now all MAC games count.

I am also beginning to wonder if they tried to write the tiebreak procedures assuming a balanced schedule like they have in the Western division, where the head-to-head would never be an issue???

I did send an e-mail through the website so I will let you know if I get a response.

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:09 pm

Seriously. Every year this discussion happens, and every year people flip out about these stupid tiebreakers.

Here's the final story on the tiebreakers. If we tie for the division lead, and you see us play in the MACC game, we won the tiebreakers.

Falconfreak90 · Post by **Falconfreak90** » Mon Nov 10, 2008 6:40 pm

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:Seriously. Every year this discussion happens, and every year people flip out about these stupid tiebreakers.

Here's the final story on the tiebreakers. If we tie for the division lead, and you see us play in the MACC game, we won the tiebreakers.

Sounds good to me.

Here is what we need...

Akron losing to Buffalo...and like MarkL said, for insurance purposes, Temple loses another game. BG beats Buffalo and TSUN.

Boom...we're playin' for the title. The MACC is Friday Dec 5 at 8. If I can't leave work (new job and I already got 11/21 and 11/28 off) until 5:30, that means I will get to Ford Field no later than 8:30...of course takin my chances and speeding will get me there by 8.

Hope I get the chance to get a speeding ticket.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Mon Nov 10, 2008 7:11 pm

Wouldn't it be fun to have a team that won enough of these games that we didn't have to worry about silly tie breakers? I mean we've been favored in every MAC game we've played this year, and yet here we are sitting at 3 conference losses.

If we had a better program we wouldn't be worrying about these stupid tie breakers every year...

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Mon Nov 10, 2008 8:00 pm

hammb wrote:Wouldn't it be fun to have a team that won enough of these games that we didn't have to worry about silly tie breakers? I mean we've been favored in every MAC game we've played this year, and yet here we are sitting at 3 conference losses.

If we had a better program we wouldn't be worrying about these stupid tie breakers every year...

Amen brother, amen. Wins over Eastern and Miami and the Buffalo game would be to clinch the East.

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 8:19 am

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... /-1/SPORTS

Ryan lays it out in todays Toledo Blade.

Short version - doesn't matter what Temple does as long as Buffalo finishes ahead of Miami in the standings and Akron needs to lose once. If that happens and we win out, we go to the MACC. Kinda like I said.

Redwingtom · Post by **Redwingtom** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:13 am

Warthog wrote:http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dl ... /-1/SPORTS

Ryan lays it out in todays Toledo Blade.

Short version - doesn't matter what Temple does as long as Buffalo finishes ahead of Miami in the standings and Akron needs to lose once. If that happens and we win out, we go to the MACC. Kinda like I said.

Yeah but he never covers a three-way tie scenario involving Temple.

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Tue Nov 11, 2008 11:12 am

He covered the only way Temple can win the division in a tie with us.