Matt over at Bull Run goes through every outcome for seeds 1-5..

http://www.ubbullrun.com/2015/3/3/814623...-scenarios

This table has them all. We've got each possible combination of winners, the relevant records in that results, the resulting seeding, and the explanation for breaking any ties. You'll have to scroll left and right (slider is on the bottom). Sorry about that.

Thank you for that list

I really hate the way they do the multi-team tiebreakers. Using head-2-head when the tied teams don't play each other the same amount of times makes absolutely no sense whatsoever...to me anyway.

When Kent, BG and Toledo were all tied a week or so back, Kent won the tiebreaker because they were 2-1, BG was 1-1 and Toledo was 1-2. So since BG lost to Toledo in their only meeting (at Toledo) they are basically penalized since they didn't have a chance to play Toledo again, at home, as Kent had.

I researched many leagues a few years ago when setting up tiebreaker procedures for a basketball league I run at work and I found that most leagues go to the next tiebreaker when three or more tied teams didn't play each other equally.

And they also would go through all the tiebreak procedures with all tied teams until one team was pulled out and seeded...and then the remaining tied teams would start back at tiebreaker #1. According to the link, the MAC doesn't follow this conventional wisdom either.

I also don't like how a two team tie breaker if they split goes to divisional record. Say we were to have been tied with WMU, which i know we aren't. But since we split now the next tiebreaker is divisional record, so our record vs. the East and their's vs. the West.. Doesn't really make sense.

(03-04-2015 10:12 AM)BullBoy Wrote:  I also don't like how a two team tie breaker if they split goes to divisional record. Say we were to have been tied with WMU, which i know we aren't. But since we split now the next tiebreaker is divisional record, so our record vs. the East and their's vs. the West.. Doesn't really make sense.

The format could use some revising, that's for sure

(03-04-2015 10:12 AM)BullBoy Wrote:  I also don't like how a two team tie breaker if they split goes to divisional record. Say we were to have been tied with WMU, which i know we aren't. But since we split now the next tiebreaker is divisional record, so our record vs. the East and their's vs. the West.. Doesn't really make sense.

Agreed. That's asinine.

When I tweeted my concern about the head-2-head to Jeremy at the MAC he just replied "LOL".

Whatever...

(03-04-2015 11:05 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 10:12 AM)BullBoy Wrote:  I also don't like how a two team tie breaker if they split goes to divisional record. Say we were to have been tied with WMU, which i know we aren't. But since we split now the next tiebreaker is divisional record, so our record vs. the East and their's vs. the West.. Doesn't really make sense.

Agreed. That's asinine.

When I tweeted my concern about the head-2-head to Jeremy at the MAC he just replied "LOL".

Whatever...

and you're a BG fan. I'd quote his reply to Ohio fans but he doesn't reply to Ohio fans, so I can't. There were 6 games last night and all of his tweets before the game were about the BG game. he didn't even mention the Akron/Ohio game on ESPN Friday night until it was over. He tweeted more about the Browns during the game then the he did about the game he is paid to communicate about.

(03-04-2015 01:00 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 11:05 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 10:12 AM)BullBoy Wrote:  I also don't like how a two team tie breaker if they split goes to divisional record. Say we were to have been tied with WMU, which i know we aren't. But since we split now the next tiebreaker is divisional record, so our record vs. the East and their's vs. the West.. Doesn't really make sense.

Agreed. That's asinine.

When I tweeted my concern about the head-2-head to Jeremy at the MAC he just replied "LOL".

Whatever...

and you're a BG fan. I'd quote his reply to Ohio fans but he doesn't reply to Ohio fans, so I can't. There were 6 games last night and all of his tweets before the game were about the BG game. he didn't even mention the Akron/Ohio game on ESPN Friday night until it was over. He tweeted more about the Browns during the game then the he did about the game he is paid to communicate about.

It's twitter...I wouldn't get too worked up. I don't know that he's ever replied to me before...maybe once a year or so ago.

Division record only comes into play if two or more teams are tied atop the same division. If teams from different divisions are tied or teams from same division are tied, but not for first, division record is not used at all.

Jguy was at the BG game thats why he tweeted so much. Who cares, he's one dude.

Huh, I would have posted this myself and not asked Tim to do it for me but I didn't know my CSNbbs account was postable. It wasn't when I initially made it.

RocketBBallFan is correct - I imagine he remembers from last year. Division record only matters for two teams tied atop the division.

The only place it can come into play this year is is WMU EMU, BG, and Kent win Friday. Kent-BG-CMU threeway: CMU locked into #3 at 1-2 aggregate; Kent, BG still tied, Kent better East record. But Kent would have won after the 1-1 H2H did nothing anyway, as after matching records vs CMU, Kent is 2-0 vs Toledo, BG 0-1

I don't mind the solution for three (or more) way ties. They do go by winning percentage to mitigate the uneven #s of games. If we're worried about one more chance vs, say Toledo, making a difference, then every team in the conference had games they dropped that were avoidable. I saw a Toledo Blade article today encouraging a 22-game MAC slate and I hate that idea. We need a higher chance of teams hitting the tournament with 3 or fewer MAC losses.

I'd be more in support of a return to top four byes into quarterfinals, but I understand why the conference wants to protect its top end.

As for Jguy, I don't mind the disparate school talk, but I don't feel like reading about the Browns and Cavs every night.

(03-04-2015 06:43 PM)BullRun_Matt Wrote:  Huh, I would have posted this myself and not asked Tim to do it for me but I didn't know my CSNbbs account was postable. It wasn't when I initially made it.

RocketBBallFan is correct - I imagine he remembers from last year. Division record only matters for two teams tied atop the division.

The only place it can come into play this year is is WMU EMU, BG, and Kent win Friday. Kent-BG-CMU threeway: CMU locked into #3 at 1-2 aggregate; Kent, BG still tied, Kent better East record. But Kent would have won after the 1-1 H2H did nothing anyway, as after matching records vs CMU, Kent is 2-0 vs Toledo, BG 0-1

I don't mind the solution for three (or more) way ties. They do go by winning percentage to mitigate the uneven #s of games. If we're worried about one more chance vs, say Toledo, making a difference, then every team in the conference had games they dropped that were avoidable. I saw a Toledo Blade article today encouraging a 22-game MAC slate and I hate that idea. We need a higher chance of teams hitting the tournament with 3 or fewer MAC losses.

I'd be more in support of a return to top four byes into quarterfinals, but I understand why the conference wants to protect its top end.

As for Jguy, I don't mind the disparate school talk, but I don't feel like reading about the Browns and Cavs every night.

Please someone make this happen, the MAC Tournament was a much better experience that way!!! Love the 4 quarterfinal games on Thursday, wasn't there a year when those four games were decided by 7 points or something like that?

(03-04-2015 07:39 PM)Rocket A Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 06:43 PM)BullRun_Matt Wrote:  Huh, I would have posted this myself and not asked Tim to do it for me but I didn't know my CSNbbs account was postable. It wasn't when I initially made it.

RocketBBallFan is correct - I imagine he remembers from last year. Division record only matters for two teams tied atop the division.

The only place it can come into play this year is is WMU EMU, BG, and Kent win Friday. Kent-BG-CMU threeway: CMU locked into #3 at 1-2 aggregate; Kent, BG still tied, Kent better East record. But Kent would have won after the 1-1 H2H did nothing anyway, as after matching records vs CMU, Kent is 2-0 vs Toledo, BG 0-1

I don't mind the solution for three (or more) way ties. They do go by winning percentage to mitigate the uneven #s of games. If we're worried about one more chance vs, say Toledo, making a difference, then every team in the conference had games they dropped that were avoidable. I saw a Toledo Blade article today encouraging a 22-game MAC slate and I hate that idea. We need a higher chance of teams hitting the tournament with 3 or fewer MAC losses.

I'd be more in support of a return to top four byes into quarterfinals, but I understand why the conference wants to protect its top end.

As for Jguy, I don't mind the disparate school talk, but I don't feel like reading about the Browns and Cavs every night.

Please someone make this happen, the MAC Tournament was a much better experience that way!!! Love the 4 quarterfinal games on Thursday, wasn't there a year when those four games were decided by 7 points or something like that?

^^^^AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY!!! MACTION ON A THURSDAY!!! WE WANT IT!

(03-04-2015 09:52 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I really hate the way they do the multi-team tiebreakers. Using head-2-head when the tied teams don't play each other the same amount of times makes absolutely no sense whatsoever...to me anyway.

When Kent, BG and Toledo were all tied a week or so back, Kent won the tiebreaker because they were 2-1, BG was 1-1 and Toledo was 1-2. So since BG lost to Toledo in their only meeting (at Toledo) they are basically penalized since they didn't have a chance to play Toledo again, at home, as Kent had.

I researched many leagues a few years ago when setting up tiebreaker procedures for a basketball league I run at work and I found that most leagues go to the next tiebreaker when three or more tied teams didn't play each other equally.

And they also would go through all the tiebreak procedures with all tied teams until one team was pulled out and seeded...and then the remaining tied teams would start back at tiebreaker #1. According to the link, the MAC doesn't follow this conventional wisdom either.

Wow I totally agree with Redwingtom! Snowing and cold in hell.

(03-04-2015 07:39 PM)Rocket A Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 06:43 PM)BullRun_Matt Wrote:  Huh, I would have posted this myself and not asked Tim to do it for me but I didn't know my CSNbbs account was postable. It wasn't when I initially made it.

RocketBBallFan is correct - I imagine he remembers from last year. Division record only matters for two teams tied atop the division.

The only place it can come into play this year is is WMU EMU, BG, and Kent win Friday. Kent-BG-CMU threeway: CMU locked into #3 at 1-2 aggregate; Kent, BG still tied, Kent better East record. But Kent would have won after the 1-1 H2H did nothing anyway, as after matching records vs CMU, Kent is 2-0 vs Toledo, BG 0-1

I don't mind the solution for three (or more) way ties. They do go by winning percentage to mitigate the uneven #s of games. If we're worried about one more chance vs, say Toledo, making a difference, then every team in the conference had games they dropped that were avoidable. I saw a Toledo Blade article today encouraging a 22-game MAC slate and I hate that idea. We need a higher chance of teams hitting the tournament with 3 or fewer MAC losses.

I'd be more in support of a return to top four byes into quarterfinals, but I understand why the conference wants to protect its top end.

As for Jguy, I don't mind the disparate school talk, but I don't feel like reading about the Browns and Cavs every night.

Please someone make this happen, the MAC Tournament was a much better experience that way!!! Love the 4 quarterfinal games on Thursday, wasn't there a year when those four games were decided by 7 points or something like that?

I echo this also, 2 games a day does not feel like a true tourney. If you are keeping a dvisional format, I really thought the MAC had it right awarding the 2 division winners, but at the same time it doesn't punish an outstanding 2nd place team from the other division. It was such a reactionary change to several years of MAC East dominance.

(03-04-2015 05:38 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  Jguy was at the BG game thats why he tweeted so much. Who cares, he's one dude.

he's not "one dude", his official title is "Assistant Commissioner for Communications & Social Media for the Mid American Conference", it's literally his job to tweet about all of the teams in the MAC. Literally.

The MAC twitter account can tweet about scores. If he is at a game, then he is going to tweet about the game he is at? Announcers dont announce other games if they arent there. He would be using an espn app to tweet scorez and he'd be even later to the news than twitter followers. Use your own app to find the scores or follow the teams twitters if you want news quicker. Who follows JGUY only and uses twitter as their sole source for up to date scores??

I see PP's point...and I don't think he's complaining about just not knowing a score.

The bigger issue is something that BullRun_Matt brought up. He shouldn't be tweeting about Cleveland professional team nonsense on his MAC twitter account. He should use his personal twitter account for that.

But it's not a huge deal either way really...heck, half of the tweets by the Blade's John Wagner are about hats, Sweet Caroline and Happy by Pharrell.

You should see the stuff Samuel Pepys tweets about. Can't stay focused on what's important!

(03-05-2015 12:11 PM)UofToledoFans Wrote:  The MAC twitter account can tweet about scores. If he is at a game, then he is going to tweet about the game he is at? Announcers dont announce other games if they arent there. He would be using an espn app to tweet scorez and he'd be even later to the news than twitter followers. Use your own app to find the scores or follow the teams twitters if you want news quicker. Who follows JGUY only and uses twitter as their sole source for up to date scores??

I understand he's going to tweet more about a game he is at, but my point is that IT IS LITERALLY HIS JOB to tweet about the entire conference. I'm not looking for updates, I'm just asking that the Director of Communications and Social Media use social media to communicate to his followers that there are other games being played at the same time. That is not the requirement of an announcer.

On Friday night 2/27the MAC had 1 game, Ohio v Akron, and it was featured in prime time on ESPNU. JGuy made zero tweets about the game all day and all week until after it was over he sent 2 tweets with links to recaps. The reason I am calling him out is because, to his credit, he has over 6K followers, more than any conference communications director I've ever seen, so a lot of people see his tweets. The other reason is, and I'm going to say it again in all caps so there's no misunderstanding, I expect him to tweet about all of the games because IT IS LITERALLY HIS JOB.

hope that clears it up.