Jump to content

JFKFC

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    2694
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by JFKFC

  1. On 11/17/2023 at 2:53 PM, jdhorn92 said:

    Blue is going to show out Saturday night.  He's got an incredible opportunity to take the RB position by storm this closing stretch

    Preach!

    • Hook 'Em 1
  2. 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.

     

    Studying Matt Damon GIF by MIRAMAX

  3. 14 minutes ago, South Austin said:

    UDub is currently my daughter's No. 1 choice and I'm hoping she goes there next year.  I've taken a tour of the campus with her, and would love to see a game at Husky Stadium.

    UW is great, but just like Texas, certain majors are very difficult for OOS applicants. I hope she gets accepted. 

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...