http://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/354...t_shaving/

It's a forum not an article but an interesting observation neverless.

Using the point differential the way the Big XII chose to do today is a flawed tiebreaking system that could cost a team the championship by scoring too much.
Consider the following scenario…
Team A beats Team B by 10 points.
Team A loses to Team C by 12 points.
Team A differential is set at -2.
Now Team B plays Team C
If Team B beats Team C by 7 points or less, Team C wins the tiebreak. (A vs C head to head)
If Team B beats Team C by 9-13 points, Team B wins the tiebreak. (B vs C head to head)
If Team B beats Team C by 15 points or more, Team A wins the tiebreak. (A vs B head to head)
Under this system, Team B could cost themselves the tiebreaker by scoring.

(05-07-2015 03:54 PM)john01992 Wrote:  http://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/354...t_shaving/

It's a forum not an article but an interesting observation neverless.

Using the point differential the way the Big XII chose to do today is a flawed tiebreaking system that could cost a team the championship by scoring too much.
Consider the following scenario…
Team A beats Team B by 10 points.
Team A loses to Team C by 12 points.
Team A differential is set at -2.
Now Team B plays Team C
If Team B beats Team C by 7 points or less, Team C wins the tiebreak. (A vs C head to head)
If Team B beats Team C by 9-13 points, Team B wins the tiebreak. (B vs C head to head)
If Team B beats Team C by 15 points or more, Team A wins the tiebreak. (A vs B head to head)
Under this system, Team B could cost themselves the tiebreaker by scoring.

I think this argument is flawed. The point differential comes into play separately as a third option - just before you go to the commissioner's hat.

First comparison is head-to-head. A beat B, B beat C, but C beat A. So, head-to-head tiebreaker still results in a tie. You move on to the next tiebreaker - you don't need to come back later and re-analyze anything about the head-to-head matchups.

Second comparison is record against next best team - team D. If A, B, and C all beat team D, then you move on to the third tiebreaker. This is the most likely scenario if A, B, and C each only have one conference loss (amongst each other). [But it could be the decisive tiebreaker if A, B, and C each have two losses, in which case it could eliminate one or two of the contenders).

Third comparison is the point differential. First, there is no indication that the scoring differential is only among the three tied teams. It could be, but I didn't see this specified in any media reports. So, the tiebreaker here could be to simply look at the scoring differential for all conference games - and then you have your winner. It is very unlikely to have a scoring differential tie for all conference games.

EVEN IF it is the scoring differential from the games amongst the contenders only, you don't go back to the First tiebreaker. A, B, and C are tied after tiebreakers #1 and #2, remember. So, as stated in the hypothetical, if A beats B by 10 and loses to C by 12, A's differential is -2. B stands at -10 and C at +12 before B and C play. No other analysis needed until the B v. C game is played.

If B beats C by 10 or less, C's differential is +2 (+12 minus 10 = +2) and B's differential is 0 (-10 plus 10 = 0). Thus, C wins because +2 > 0 > -2.

If B wins by 12 points or more, C's differential is 0 (+12 minus 12 = 0) and B's differential is +2 (-10 plus 12 = +2. Thus, B wins because +2 > 0> -2.

But, I guess you go to the commissioner's hat if B wins by exactly 11 points - in which case both B's differential and C's differential is +1.

In any event, there is no point-shaving risk, because the more points scored by B the better. If B beats C by 20, B's differential is +10, C's differential is - 8, and A's differential is -2. B wins by virtue of the scoring differential tiebreaker.

If B beats C by 10
A would be at -2
B would be at 0
C would be at +2.

If B beats C by 11
A would be at -2
B would be at +1
C would be at +1
(b would have tie break)

So no pointshaving at all. What would be interesting Team b is up by 3 on team c late in their game. They score a TD with 1 second left. They would have to go for 2 to get the tiebreaker... Now, if they scored with no time left, the game would be over(as the PAT doesn't mean anything to the game itself).

I figured the differential was how much A,B,C all beat team D.
A beat D by 1
B beat D by 4
C beat D by 2

B wins the tie breaker because they beat D by the most.

(05-07-2015 04:56 PM)stever20 Wrote:  If B beats C by 10
A would be at -2
B would be at 0
C would be at +2.

If B beats C by 11
A would be at -2
B would be at +1
C would be at +1
(b would have tie break)

So no pointshaving at all. What would be interesting Team b is up by 3 on team c late in their game. They score a TD with 1 second left. They would have to go for 2 to get the tiebreaker... Now, if they scored with no time left, the game would be over(as the PAT doesn't mean anything to the game itself).

Very interesting scenario. Although no point-shaving, the tiebreaker absolutely affects how the game is called.

But, if B beats C by 11, I don't think B would have the tiebreak over C. Then, why have the fourth option of the draw at the conference commissioner's office? I believe that each of the tiebreakers is mutually exclusive. So, if tiebreaker #1 still results in a tie, you move to tiebreaker #2 - without looking back at #1.

So, if A, B and C are still tied after the first two tiebreakers, you move on to tiebreaker #3. If B and C have identical scoring differentials, then you go to the commissioners hat.

OR, none of us have any idea what's really going on and the Big 12 has failed to adequately explain its "simple" tie-breaking processes.

http://www.foxsports.com/college-footbal...ion-050615

The above article sets for the the procedure in more detail than other media reports I had read.

After further review, the OP may have it correct. But, it's still uncertain. There is either a typo or grammatical error in text of the #3 tiebreaker. It says the team (singular)....are eliminated from consideration. It should either be the team (singular)....IS eliminated from consideration...or the teams (plural) are eliminated from consideration.

So, if tiebreaker #3 only eliminates the lowest (one) team from consideration, then the OP's scenario is correct.

However, if tiebreaker #3 eliminates all the lowest teams from consideration (ie, the highest scoring differential wins), then it is always best to score more points.

The Big 12 took it too far.

you should use head to head to break a 2-way tie, absolutely.

but if 3 teams tie, and the head to head does not break the tie, then they should still be called co-champions.

Point differential is a bad way to break a tie, no better than drawing from a hat. The CFP can pick the team to go to the big bowls. odds are if 3 teams are 11-1, they will all get picked for a Tier1 bowl.

(05-08-2015 05:58 AM)goofus Wrote:  The Big 12 took it too far.

you should use head to head to break a 2-way tie, absolutely.

but if 3 teams tie, and the head to head does not break the tie, then they should still be called co-champions.

Point differential is a bad way to break a tie, no better than drawing from a hat. The CFP can pick the team to go to the big bowls. odds are if 3 teams are 11-1, they will all get picked for a Tier1 bowl.

I agree. I'm OK for two teams tying head to head determining official league champ.

But for three or more, I think the league should crown co-champions and then use these rules to determine who is submitted to the committee for consideration as the league champ. It's one thing to use head to head. But once you start getting into points and commissioner's hat, those are crappy ways to give one team a trophy and title and nothing to 2 or more others with a similar argument.

What if there was a 5 way tie? Then, there would be a headache.

(05-09-2015 06:37 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  What if there was a 5 way tie? Then, there would be a headache.

lol, yeah what if all 5 finished 5-4 and were 2-2 head to head ?

No doubt there would be a headache, thats a lot of head to head.

(05-09-2015 07:53 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(05-09-2015 06:37 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  What if there was a 5 way tie? Then, there would be a headache.

lol, yeah what if all 5 finished 5-4 and were 2-2 head to head ?

No doubt there would be a headache, thats a lot of head to head.

Things could get really crazy with multi-loss conference champions:

If all 6 BCS AQ champions finished outside the Top 3, a non-AQ conference champ finished in the Top 12, and Notre Dame finished in the Top 8, it would be possible for the #3 team in the country to sit at home. That was one exposure the BCS had that thankfully was never realized.

If the Big 12 did have a five-way tie at 5-4, determining the next best team would also be painful as all of the other teams would be 4-5. Whoever lost to the team that was determined to have finished sixth would be eliminated in the second tiebreaker.