On C-USA's own webpage, the standings in the West are as follows...

1) UAB 3-1 (5-3)
2) UTSA 5-2 (7-4)
3) LA Tech 4-2 (5-4)
4) UNT 3-4 (4-5)
5) Rice 2-3 (2-3)
6) USM 2-4 (3-7)
7) UTEP 0-4 (3-5)

C-USA said that when two teams have the same number of losses but have a difference of one win, they're "tied", with the head-to-head determining the tie-breaker. As we can clearly see, UNT and USM fall in that category, and USM beat UNT head-to-head, so they should technically be in front of UNT.

Throw in a team like Rice though, and it's revealed how flawed this methodology is. UNT has a better winning percentage than Rice, and Rice a better winning percentage than USM, so we can assume they ended up grouping them by winning percentage then. Let's say though that those 3 teams would've been at the top of the West instead of where they are. What would C-USA have done? Would they have changed their stance yet again and gone with winning percentage after all (which is the only logical way to begin with in my opinion), or would they have still stuck to their silly notion that two teams with the same number of losses but a difference of one win are "tied"?

The issue when you come up with their kinds of nonsensical ideas about what constitutes a "tie" between two teams is that a Rice will throw everything off. I've never been one to complain much about our conference's leadership, but I've already commented on this snafu in a different thread, and the whole way they've managed this unorthodox season just highlights the inability of our leadership to make logical decisions going forward. I feel the real test of mettle in leadership is how novel circumstances are handled, and this year has definitely not been a shining endorsement.

(12-13-2020 12:30 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  C-USA said that when two teams have the same number of losses but have a difference of one win, they're "tied", with the head-to-head determining the tie-breaker.

Actually, the rule added stated it applies to determining the divisional champion and championship host if team(s) had not played an equal number of games and a team is within one win from the team with the highest conference winning percentage and has an equal number of losses, then those teams shall be declared tied. It clearly stated this rule applies to determining a division championship or the title game host. Everyone else will line up by win percentage and traditional tiebreaker rules.

(12-13-2020 01:30 PM)CoachMaclid Wrote:  

(12-13-2020 12:30 PM)Volkmar Wrote:  C-USA said that when two teams have the same number of losses but have a difference of one win, they're "tied", with the head-to-head determining the tie-breaker.

Actually, the rule added stated it applies to determining the divisional champion and championship host if team(s) had not played an equal number of games and a team is within one win from the team with the highest conference winning percentage and has an equal number of losses, then those teams shall be declared tied. It clearly stated this rule applies to determining a division championship or the title game host. Everyone else will line up by win percentage and traditional tiebreaker rules.

Fair enough, but why even make the distinction? Why not keep it consistent and simple rather than make one set of rules for the top and another set of rules for the others?

Aside from that, you could also run into a situation like this where what should be a 2-way tiebreaker ends up being a 3-way tiebreaker...

TEAM A 4-2 (beat TEAM B head-to-head)
TEAM B 2-1
TEAM C 3-2 (beat TEAM A head-to-head)

Even if they had a contingency for a situation like that, it just makes it more confusing than it really needs to be.