Can someone explain how Purdue ends up behind Wisconsin?
There is a 3-way tie between UCLA, Wisconsin and Purdue, at 13-7. That creates a mini-pool of 3 teams.
The 1st tiebreaker is each team's winning percentage record within the mini-pool ... and each team is 1-1 within that pool.
The 2nd tiebreaker, especially in this case, when none of the 3 teams gains an advantage from the 1st tiebreaker. That rule states:
"If the remaining teams are still tied, then each tied team's record shall be compared to the team occupying the highest position in the final regular-season standings, continuing down through the standings until one team gains an advantage."
So ... the 1st place team is MSU. The 3 teams tied here vying for the 4th - 6th seeds have the following record: UCLA was 1-0 vs MSU, while Wisconsin and Purdue are each 0-1 vs MSU. UCLA gains the advantage, and gets the 4th seed.
THEN ,... The tiebreaking procedures state:
1) "After the top team among the tied teams is determined, the second team is ranked by its record among the original tied teams, not the head-to-head record vs. the remaining team(s)."
and
2) "When arriving at another pair of tied teams while comparing records, use each team's record against the collective tied teams as a group (prior to their own tie-breaking procedures), rather than the performance against the individual tied teams."
SO ... I will admit that when moving down each team in the standings whether to keep including UCLA as part of the mini-pool. I am pretty sure that head to head between Wisconsin and Purdue is NOT supposed to be the tiebreaker as best I read it.
If once UCLA gains the advantage, it goes back to a head to head between Wisconsin and Purdue, then Wisconsin wins out having beaten Purdue.
If UCLA's record against each team as they move down the standings does NOT count for the tiebreaking, then it is merely how Wisconsin and Purdue each did against each team in the standings - which is currently Michigan, and remains so if they beat MSU today. In that case, Purdue would gain the initial advantage over Wisconsin, since Wisconsin LOST to Michigan while Purdue BEAT Michigan ... so Purdue should get the 5th seed and Wisconsin the 6th seed.
If Michigan loses to MSU, they tie with Maryland - and though Maryland wins the tiebreaker over Michigan, the tiebreaking rules clearly stat that is not relevant - Maryland and Michigan are treated as a 2-team pool for the purposes of Purdue and Wisconsin breaking their tie. IN THAT case, it remains a tie, as Purdue beat Maryland and Wisconsin lost to them - so they are each 1-1 against the 2-team pool that is Maryland and Michigan.
I have no idea what happens next ... is the next team in the standings UCLA? By the tiebreaking rules that does not seem to make sense, since the rules state that teams tied with their overall record are treated as a pool, and which team gains the advantage within that pool does not matter ... and does the tiebreakers also include Wisconsin and Purdue along with UCLA as the next teams to be included as part of the tiebreaker ... but if so, that pool does not break the tie, since we already determined Wisconsin and Purdue were tied within that pool with UCLA.
Do we then go to the next team in the standings? That would be either Illinois, or if Oregon beats Washington (seems very likely), another 2-team pool is created of Illinois and Oregon. Wisconsin was 1-1 vs Illinois and 0-1 vs Oregon ... Purdue was 0-1 vs Illinois and 1-0 vs Oregon, so 1-1 vs that 2-team mini-pool - so gains the advantage over Wisconsin and gets the 5th seed, Wisconsin with the 6th seed. However, if Oregon loses to Washington, and Illinois is a standalone ranking in the standings, THEN Purdue loses the advantage to Wisconsin - and gets the 6th seed.
That is how I read the tea leaves. It could be that when people are putting Purdue ahead of Wisconsin, they may be doing so based on the CURRENT Big 10 standings, with Oregon behind Illinois, rather than tied.
yeah, I know we will know soon enough ... can't help posting this since I have the time.
