FB: Liberty League

[redswarm81]

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) -- Game 3 of the World Series was jeopardized Saturday night by rain and gusty winds. . . .

"From what I understand, it's not going to start on time, but possibly relatively close," Rays manager Joe Maddon said. "The proverbial window is like a 9:30 or so window, although this sounds like it may be a big bay window, where you actually could play a baseball game. They're saying after this weather clears out, it should be good for the rest of the night."

Maddon was happy the delay was in a ballpark that opened in 2004 and has modern facilities and space.
"If you're in Fenway, in that clubhouse, it gets kind of annoying," he said. "The clubhouse is, what, maybe half this size. And when you have all the amenities and you get yourself a nice cheesesteak while you're waiting or watch a game on the tube -- J.P. Howell is up there watching Texas versus Oklahoma State right now -- this kind of facility ameliorates that situation a bit and permits you to get through the moment."

His use of "ameliorates" brought laughter from a room of baseball reporters not used to team personnel uttering polysyllabic words.

[Frank Rossi]

I just don't think that the WIAC gives a rat's ass what you think about the wording of its tiebreaker. They know out there how the Big Ten's Rose Bowl rule works just fine and if you don't understand it, it's not really your concern, to be honest.

If it risks costing an East team a Pool C slot unfairly, I think it is.  If I cared what the WIAC thought, I'd post this in the WIAC.  It's an issue for ANY conference vying for a Pool C slot, such as the Liberty League, in any year that another conference's tiebreaker exists as such.  And I'll happily share my letter to the NCAA with all of you to at least be open about the potential issues that could come up, if people care to read it.

And the other point, Pat, is this:  IS THAT the Rose Bowl Rule?  The wording does not make that apparent.  I think you're assuming that is their intent -- and not reading the words.  As RS81 concurred, it leaves a lot of wiggle room -- and does not make it clear if Tiebreaker #2 is a definitive tiebreaker or just a single-elimination tiebreaker.

Sorry to "waste" your message board space with such bothersome points, but I'm a big one for fairness, competitiveness and transparency -- none of which describe such a tiebreaker system (or the E8's).

[Frank Rossi]

By the way -- best GameDay commercial EVER...

Desmond Howard walking out into the main area of the GameDay bus to find Lee Corso playing a Wii dancing game in somewhat womanly gym clothes.  How do they convince Corso to do this to himself EVERY year?!

[Pat Coleman]

Well, if you want to change the WIAC's tiebreaker, join the WIAC.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not keen on parsing this crap down to the subatomic level. The rule is fairly straightforward and if the wording is not to your standards, well, we could certainly make it 20 times as long and full of legalese. That way a lawyer could read it and nobody else could.

[redswarm81]

I just don't think that the WIAC gives a rat's ass what you think about the wording of its tiebreaker. They know out there how the Big Ten's Rose Bowl rule works just fine and if you don't understand it, it's not really your concern, to be honest.

Do we know that WIAC tiebreaker replicates the Big Ten Rose Bowl tiebreaker?  I mean, have they said so?

Is the Big Ten tiebreaker written as straightforward as the WIAC tiebreaker?

[Frank Rossi]

Try this, Pat:

2.  Take the tied teams that have appeared in the NCAA Playoffs since 1991, if any -- any team(s) whose last appearance was before 1991 will not be eliminated by this tiebreaker.  If more than one team has appeared since 1991, take the remaining team(s) that have had the longest period of time since their last appearance, and eliminate all others remaining.  If more than one team remains after elimination(s), then restart with the first tiebreaker.

Wow, a LOT longer, isn't it?  However, the oddity is that I'm not even sure that this is what they meant.

And guess what, it's a national issue -- and not just the WIAC's issue.  There are several tiebreakers that make no sense.  That's why I'm going to recommend to the NCAA that they issue a uniform tiebreaker rule for Pool A conferences.  This is a macro issue, not a micro one.

[Pat Coleman]

That's what that rule refers to.

I don't much care what the Big Ten rule says.

[Pat Coleman]

I don't think the Liberty League or the NCAA should have any say in how any other conference selects its champion. I'm in favor of each conference having sovereignty over its championships.

[Frank Rossi]

Here are the Big Ten rules:

• If there is a two-way tie, the winner of the game between the two will represent the conference. If the teams did not play each other, it is then based on overall winning percentage.

• If there is still a tie, the most recent team to earn a BCS automatic selection is eliminated.

• If three teams are tied and if one team defeated both of the others, that team is the representative.

• If two of the three teams defeated the third team, that team is eliminated and the remaining two teams revert to the two-team tie procedure.

• If two of the three did not play each other, the BCS representative is determined by winning percentage in the overall schedule. If all three have the same winning percentage, the most recent representative is eliminated and the other two revert to the two-team tie procedure.

• If four or more are tied ... if one team defeated each of the other three, then that team is the representative.

• If two of the four teams defeated each of the other two, those two are eliminated and the remaining two revert to the two-team tie procedure.

• If three of the four defeated the fourth, the fourth is eliminated, then it reverts to the three-team tie procedure.

• If two of the four did not play each other, the representative will be determined by overall winning percentage.

• If one of the four teams is eliminated through percentage, the remaining teams revert to three-team tie procedure.

• If all four have the same winning percentage, the most recently Big Ten representative is eliminated and the remaining three must go through the three-team tie procedure.

[Frank Rossi]

Here are the Big Ten rules:

• If there is a two-way tie, the winner of the game between the two will represent the conference. If the teams did not play each other, it is then based on overall winning percentage.

• If there is still a tie, the most recent team to earn a BCS automatic selection is eliminated.

• If three teams are tied and if one team defeated both of the others, that team is the representative.

• If two of the three teams defeated the third team, that team is eliminated and the remaining two teams revert to the two-team tie procedure.

• If two of the three did not play each other, the BCS representative is determined by winning percentage in the overall schedule. If all three have the same winning percentage, the most recent representative is eliminated and the other two revert to the two-team tie procedure.

• If four or more are tied ... if one team defeated each of the other three, then that team is the representative.

• If two of the four teams defeated each of the other two, those two are eliminated and the remaining two revert to the two-team tie procedure.

• If three of the four defeated the fourth, the fourth is eliminated, then it reverts to the three-team tie procedure.

• If two of the four did not play each other, the representative will be determined by overall winning percentage.

• If one of the four teams is eliminated through percentage, the remaining teams revert to three-team tie procedure.

• If all four have the same winning percentage, the most recently Big Ten representative is eliminated and the remaining three must go through the three-team tie procedure.

God forbid, a conference handles a tie in a professional manner -- It may be long, but it covers virtually every scenario.

[Pat Coleman]

It's only that complex because the Rose Bowl is no longer the primary endgame for the Big Ten. Don't get all back-slappy because you found something even longer than what you wrote.

[Frank Rossi]

It's only that complex because the Rose Bowl is no longer the primary endgame for the Big Ten. Don't get all happy because you found something even longer than what you wrote.

That's LESS complex than the WIAC rule.  The WIAC rule has no logical conclusion.  The Big Ten's rule gives you an actual process.  It's likely that long because THERE'S NO WAY TO STATE THE WIAC-TYPE RULE IN ONE OR TWO SENTENCES. 

And fine if you don't think that there should be uniformity.  You're welcome to write a letter that supports the present system.  I'll be happy to share mine when we get past the season.

[redswarm81]

Here are the (proposed WIAC) rules:

If there is still a tie, the most recent team(s) to earn a (Division III Playoff) automatic selection is(/are) eliminated.

If this is what the WIAC intended, this strikes me as a simpler way to word it than that thing quoted earlier.

Am I the only one who noted the irony in the commissioner making a random selection?

[Frank Rossi]

Here are the (proposed WIAC) rules:

If there is still a tie, the most recent team(s) to earn a (Division III Playoff) automatic selection is(/are) eliminated.

If this is what the WIAC intended, this strikes me as a simpler way to word it than that thing quoted earlier.

Am I the only one who noted the irony in the commissioner making a random selection?

Most conferences use a "coin flip" as the final tiebreaker, but it normally follows 6 or more other criteria that are normally based on some level of competitiveness or strength balancing.  I've never seen a system as short and really laughable as this one.  At least the Big Ten considers OVERALL win/loss percentages.  Throw in an SoS component that balances that, if you want competitive scheduling, but going directly to what might be (but isn't as stated) the Rose Bowl Rule is questionable.  And then, as a third tiebreaker, a commissioner decision?  C'mon. 

[Pat Coleman]

You're welcome to write a letter that supports the present system. 

And this is necessary because?