Jump to content

The Home Stretch - Big 12 Championship Scenarios


Js1

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

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?

This.  The AAS sucks, but it really does look like the Big 12 is moving the goalposts hour by hour trying to contrive a way to keep us out of the CCG.  And I'm not a conspiracy theorist/aggy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After we win this thing, I hope Sark takes the entire team into the locker room immediately after the eyes and leaves Yormark standing on the field by himself with the trophy.  Then we can play in the CFP with SEC logos on the uniforms

Edited by NeverMarryAStripper
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

After we win this thing, I hope Sark takes the entire team into the locker room immediately after the eyes and leaves Yormark standing on the field by himself with the trophy.  Then we can play in the CFP with SEC logos on the uniforms

image.gif.e267745881b361dc8ef2a5231e78cc73.gif
Nah. I’d prefer to Connor cook him

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

After we win this thing, I hope Sark takes the entire team into the locker room immediately after the eyes and leaves Yormark standing on the field by himself with the trophy.  Then we can play in the CFP with SEC logos on the uniforms

Play the game with Velcro’d Big12 logos. Rip them off after and leave them on the ground.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

After we win this thing, I hope Sark takes the entire team into the locker room immediately after the eyes and leaves Yormark standing on the field by himself with the trophy.  Then we can play in the CFP with SEC logos on the uniforms

I hope Yormark and any other Big 12 admin fucks are not allowed in the stadium, much less on the field.  I want video of them being turned away at the stadium entrance.  Mail the fucking trophy, keep it, whatever.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LTtxfan said:

So I guess Alex Loeb got it right ???

 

If anyone is wondering:

  • ISU is at KState
  • BYU is at OkieState
  • TCU is at OU

 

2 hours ago, ClubWhatever said:

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

The Big XII could have solved most of their problems over the years (Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri, aggy leaving), the stupid tiebreaker in 2008, etc. by just using their heads and being proactive.  But no, they all seem to be Kent Hance level of stupid.  

Their could have been 12 actual teams and two divisions but they opted for the dumbest round robin format imaginable.  

Edited by Bullneck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we lose to Tech I dont even want to be in the Big12 CCG to be honest. That will be the ultimate gut punch and knowing our luck we would draw OU and get our ass kicked by them and our whole season would turn into a nightmare. Just win Friday and let the big 12 figure out who will be tribute to a Texas sized asskicking in Arlington. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

btw, i agree it would suck to lose to tech, etc.  

my point is - reading what other people have said, it sounded like there was a problem with the rules or the rules were super ambiguous.  then i went and looked at the rules and i think they are clear enough. 

i think the problem is the big xii is just pulling something out of their ass that is totally unsupported by the language of the rules. 

unless i am missing something or there is a chain of results next weekend we haven't considered. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, satyanash said:

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

 

 

This guy isn’t reading correctly, it says in the tie scenario of a team beat each of the other tied teams they advance, not some of the each tied teams.

 

5 hours 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

 

By wording and by reason, if OU got the #1 seed and it come down to OSU/UT I think there’s something to the poorly worded rules where it says 

“When arriving at another group of tied teams while comparing records, use each team's win percentage against the collective tied teams as a group (prior to that group's own tie-breaking procedure)”

to me this contradicts “next” which means coming after.   OU at #1 seed has left the chat, those tied for 2 haven’t played, so we should move on to next.  But they fuck it up with more words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alphahydro said:

btw, i agree it would suck to lose to tech, etc.  

my point is - reading what other people have said, it sounded like there was a problem with the rules or the rules were super ambiguous.  then i went and looked at the rules and i think they are clear enough. 

i think the problem is the big xii is just pulling something out of their ass that is totally unsupported by the language of the rules. 

unless i am missing something or there is a chain of results next weekend we haven't considered. 

Yeah, the Big 12 has already changed the rule once. What stops them from changing the rules again to put whoever they want into the game?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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.

 

This it correct. Once the 3 way bumps to the 2 way, those 2 teams are both in. Done. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Kwix said:

This it correct. Once the 3 way bumps to the 2 way, those 2 teams are both in. Done. 

This is how it should be but the language of the tiebreaker rules does support the other interpretation. It says that once "one team gains an advantage and is seeded" then they go to the other teams. But then it says compare those to the "next highest" teams. The published tiebreaker rules are a complete and total mess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 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.

 

The other interpretation is that the "vs common opponents" section gets run through all the way and seeds: OSU #3 loss to ISU, who was beaten by both OU and TX and Texas gets seeded #1 for win vs KU who beat OU.  There is no jumping around sections at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, chad.ihrig said:

Quick, someone who wants to read and such: are we in with a loss or no?

If we lose, we're still in if two of blOU/Okie Lite/KSU lose. Otherwise, clusterfuck. Naturally the statement makes no attempt to explain said clusterfuck.

Edited by satyanash
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, satyanash said:

If we lose, we're still in if two of blOU/Okie Lite/KSU lose. Otherwise, clusterfuck. Naturally the statement makes no attempt to explain said clusterfuck.

Exactly. They basically released a statement saying they still have no clue what the tiebreaker says. They're hoping it doesn't matter. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Huckleberry said:

Exactly. They basically released a statement saying they still have no clue what the tiebreaker says. They're hoping it doesn't matter. 

“We didn’t want to do our homework, so here’s the bare minimum. Maybe we’ll explain more on Friday”

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Huckleberry said:

Exactly. They basically released a statement saying they still have no clue what the tiebreaker says. They're hoping it doesn't matter. 

We may get ref help instead of ref fucked this week all so the Big 12 doesn't have to get embarrassed nationally with their shitty tiebreakers? Count me in!

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Shit, I’m not reading all that, and it doesn’t surprise me that the Big 12 doesn’t want to either.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...