Sunbelt Post Season Format With Tie Breaking Rules

CMJ · March 4, 2010

Nevermind...

Edited March 4, 2010 by CMJ

GrayEagle · March 4, 2010

.............

Great job to FFJ for finding the information.

I spoke to THE source today. As it turns out, the AD's and commissioner sat down prior to the season and decided that due to the odd amount of teams playing each other, and the fact thatsomeone
was going to play more teams than others, that they would go with the overall best
record in head to head play. My oppinion is I don't believe they thought it would play out as it did because the conference forgot to tell the rest of the outside world about this decision or update it on their website.

Our AD dept was on the phone with the conference all this morning getting it straighteend out. I assure you no one is happy about the outcome and I was assured today that that message
was sent loud and clear to the conference that for the next season(even though we don't have
to worry about playing another set of odd opponents in conferenc) they will get it corrected and in writing so there won't be any confusion in the future.
Rick

Rick, that may be true for next year but I believe that Denver's time is up the following year and unless and until there is a replacement for them the problem will exist again.

My question is that if the ruling were overturned and we were awarded the #1 seed (which I'm sure won't happen)would that make us eligible for the NIT should we lose in the conference tournament?

CMJ · March 4, 2010

Rick, that may be true for next year but I believe that Denver's time is up the following year and unless and until there is a replacement for them the problem will exist again.

My question is that if the ruling were overturned and we were awarded the #1 seed (which I'm sure won't happen)would that make us eligible for the NIT should we lose in the conference tournament?

Yes it would.

FireFightnJoey · March 4, 2010

shoot they don't even list the division champions in their historical list that CMJ linked to. That is of no significance to them except for seeding.

Aren't you bored yet?

The three division champions (yes, MTSU and Troy are co-champions)have identical w/l records and the head-to-head records determine that Troy is 1st seed.

The rule does neither says nor implies that the first step is to proclaim one of the two east co-champs a division champ. This is a seeding issue not a championship determining issue. The history of the Sun Belt shows clearly that in the past the teams that tied are considered champions no matter how they are seeded. See the link provided by CMJ; there three teams were considered co-champs in 2007 and 2008. The tie breaking formula was used only for seeding and NOT for determining a champion, division or otherwise.

Look I would have written the rule differently, as well. But it is what it is.

I am bored with this "issue". The Sun Belt is not out to get us and has applied the rule the way it was written. Can't we move on?

George, I think I understand what you are trying to say regarding 3 way tie. But, you are wrong. You have to look at the records and determine how each team finished to understand how they listed them. The teams listed are the divisional champs and sometimes there are two ties for the division. So, they list that division's co-champ. But then comes the seeding and it is VERY different.

2007 Tournament (the year NT won it all)

This site lists the champions as follows, I included their records and their seeding:

Team/Overall Record/Conference Record/Tournament Seeding

South Alabama 20-10 (13-5) #1

Arkansas State 16-14 (11-7) #2

Lousiana-Monroe 17-13 (11-7) #4

2007 Tournament Bracket

USA won the East division and ASU/ULM were co-champs for the West division. ASU got the nod for the #2 seed. But what about Western Kentucky that year and why isn't ULM listed at the #3 seed? WKU is listed at the #3 seed. Here are their stats:

WKU 21-10 (12-6) #3

So, the division champs got the number 1 and 2 seeds. The west division was tied and the head to head determined ASU the #2. WKU had a better conference record than ASU. Why aren't they the number 2 seed? According to your interpretation of the rules, that would be the case. But it is not the right interpretation of the rules. The rules CLEARLY state that the division champs get the number 1 and 2 seeds. Therefore, the champion must be determined in order to determine #1 ands #2 seeds. The 2007 season is the example that the conference determines division champions and gives them the first two seeds. Otherwise, the #2 seed would have gone to WKU.

How about the 2008 Tournament when WKU and USA both went to the dance?

USA (25-5) 16-2 #1

WKU (24-6) 16-2 #3

UALR (19-10) 11-7 #2

2008 Tournament Bracket

Again, WKU got the #3 spot because they were NOT the division champs even though their conference record was better than UALR.

2007 and 2008 are both examples that prove the intention of the tournament format and tiebreaking rules for divions champions. Like I stated and posted in the first post, the "Tie Breaking Formula" is a separate tiebreaker for 3-13. That is why a specific tie breaker is listed for #1 and #2 to be between division winners. There can be co-champs, but there is still just one winner and that is who wins head to head.

Why do you think we are all so pissed about this b-s? We have seen the format in effect and knew what happened in the past. Look at my posts and you will see I don't go these lengths unless it is quite obvious we're getting the royal shaft.

Also, I recieved a reply from the athletic department that says they thought exactly the same:

We have the same concerns that you brought up very poignantly and have expressed those concerns with the administration of the Sun Belt Conference at length. The justification that we received from the Sun Belt is that the intention of the tiebreaking formula was to throw all tied teams into the hat and break those ties using the stated formula. Our contention was that the rules state that the division winners must be declared within the division first and then you would proceed to the tiebreaking formula. The conference office agreed that the language is ambiguous...

What's ambiguous about it? It wasn't ambiguous in 2007 and 2008. Quite clear. In this email was no mention of any crap being agreed upon at the first of the season. How about publishing this agreement? Again, what does it matter there is an odd number of teams? We all play the same number of conference games.

This is total b-s and we're getting the shaft. Apparently we're stuck with it and not sure anything will be done, although there should be something done. A NIT berth is a big deal and it belongs to our players ... they deserve it. This crap about changing the rules for one freaking season is mickey mouse b-s.

Edited March 4, 2010 by FireFightnJoey