Standings, Tiebreaker, Shrug

 

OK, so after last night, here is where things stand.

OU got a huge win beating a UT team that played a completely listless second half.  There was one call that went against them, and I get it, it can make a difference in football, but I felt like OU was better than them play after play.

Anyway, they are out.

A bunch of people were trying to figure out the tiebreakers for various scenarios.  I know @hustlebelt eventually concluded what I did, which is that it is borderline impossible to interpret some of the language in the tie breaker rules that the MAC published.

As @hustlebelt pointed out, this may be why the Big Ten took four days to figure out whether Oregon had clinched a berth in the title game.

My observation would be that the MAC hired the same people who write instructions for assembling furniture to write these tie-breaking guidelines. As an aside, @Hustlebelt and I should be hired next year and we will get it right.

So.  BG wins both or loses both and it is over.

The complicated part comes with a split.

If BG beats Ball State and loses to Miami, then for there to be a conversation at 6-2, Ohio would have to lose to Ball State and UB beat Kent.  Miami is in. If there was a tie for the second spot with OU, BG, and UB, I make BG and UB 4-0 among common opponents and OU 3-1 (loss to Ball State).  I can't take it any further...and I might have that wrong.

If BG lost to Ball State and beat Miami, and OU lost to Ball State and UB beat Kent, you have a 4-way tie with two slots.  I make it Miami and UB in the final, because BG and OU would have both lost to Ball State, now a common opponent and Miami and UB did not.

Hopefully, some better info will come out.  This exact process was why the MAC coaches in basketball wanted to get rid of double byes.  You are conferring big advantages on these minute tie-breakers.  I predict that controversy in major conferences on this matter will lead to conference semi-finals.