Big Ten Tournament scenarios
Are you wondering what the seeding scenarios are for the Big Ten Tournament next week? We are here to help. Let’s go directly to the Big Ten website and the multiple-team tiebreaker, which refers to three or more teams in a tie. (Two-team ties are easy, given the head-to-head matchups. Wisconsin, for instance, would obviously win a two-team tie with Maryland based on a win earlier this season.)
Here is the multiple-team tiebreaker procedure:
1. Results of head-to-head competition during the regular-season.
a. When comparing records against the tied teams, teams will be seeded based on winning percentage among the group, even if the number of games played against the team or group are unequal (i.e., 2-0 is better than 3-1, but 2-0 is not better than 1-0). If all teams among the group are separated based on winning percentage, all ties are broken. If winning percentage among the group for any tied teams is equal, move to step b with those specific tied teams only (e.g. if there is a four-team tie, one team is 4-0, another is 3-1 and the last two are 2-2 among the group, the two teams that are 2-2 move to step b and the teams that are 4-0 and 3-1 assume the next two available highest seeds).
Note: Teams can be separated from the top, middle or bottom.
b. If a team or teams are separated from the group based on step a, seeding for remaining teams among the group is not determined by head-to-head record vs. the remaining teams, but rather by taking all remaining teams to next tie breaker.
2. 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.
a. 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.
b. When comparing records against a single team or group of teams, the higher winning percentage shall prevail, even if the number of games played against the team or group are unequal (i.e., 2-0 is better than 3-1, but 2-0 is not better than 1-0).
3. Won-loss percentage of Division I opponents.
4. Coin toss conducted by Commissioner or designee.
Maryland went 0-1 vs. Wisconsin, 1-1 vs. Michigan State, 2-0 vs. Illinois, 0-1 vs. Penn State, and 1-1 vs. Iowa.
Wisconsin went 1-0 vs. Maryland, 1-1 vs. Michigan State, 0-1 vs. Illinois, 1-0 vs. Penn State, and 0-1 vs. Iowa.
Michigan State went 1-1 vs. Maryland, 1-1 vs. Wisconsin, 2-0 vs. Illinois, 0-1 vs. Penn State with another game coming vs. PSU, and 1-0 vs. Iowa.
Illinois went 0-2 vs. Maryland, 1-0 vs. Wisconsin, 0-2 vs. Michigan State, 1-0 vs. Penn State, and 0-1 vs. Iowa with another game coming vs. the Hawkeyes.
Penn State went 1-0 vs. Maryland, 0-1 vs. Wisconsin, 1-0 vs. Michigan State with another game vs. the Spartans, 0-1 vs. Illinois, and 1-1 vs. Iowa.
Iowa went 1-1 vs. Maryland, 1-0 vs. Wisconsin, 0-1 vs. Michigan State, 1-0 vs. Illinois with another game vs. the Illini, and 1-1 vs. Penn State.
From these results, you can see which three-team ties, four-team ties, or five-team ties will lead to certain seeding results. For example, a three-team tie involving Maryland, Illinois and Wisconsin would go like this:
Maryland 2-0 vs. Illinois, 0-1 vs. Wisconsin. Group record: 2-1.
Illinois 0-2 vs. Maryland, 1-0 vs. Wisconsin. Group record: 1-2.
Wisconsin 1-0 vs. Maryland, 0-1 vs. Illinois. Group record: 1-1.
Maryland would be seeded the highest, Wisconsin second, Illinois third.
Mix and match and add the group results for other combinations of teams above. You will get your tiebreaker results and seeding scenarios in most cases. If there is a tie, move to tiebreaker No. 2 in the above italicized tiebreaker procedure.
