forums

2026 ACC Tiebreaker Unveiled at Media Days

hurricaneman said:
This is the first section:

1. Defining Tied Teams:
a. Step 1: Identify the team or teams with the best Conference win percentage;
plus,
b. Step 2: Any team or teams which played an alternate number of Conference games and have either the same number of Conference wins or the same number of Conference losses as the team(s) identified in Step 1.
c. No other teams may be defined as Tied Teams.

Maybe I'm missing something but there's no way teams with dissimilar number of conference games are ever going to have the same win percentage with matching wins or losses, unless they're both undefeated. So why would the first part stand alone and not be in conjunction with part b?

I think the 8-0 team ties the 8-1 team the way it's written. You're going to punish a team that won the same number of games as the other but had to play an additional game? This is the, "why play a conference championship game, it can only hurt you", argument all over again. Imagine a scenario where Miami plays an identical conference schedule to another ACC team, they both win all those games going 8-0, but then Miami has to play a ranked Pitt team at the end of the season and losses and the other team doesn't have to play any additional games.
Click to expand...

The first step is best winning %. Between an 8-0 team and an 8-1 team, I expect we both agree that is the 8-0 team, right?

So now we move to the next step (i.e., step 2). On its face, for step 2 to apply, the team must have "played an alternate number of conference games" (i.e., 8 games). Because the 8-1 team played 9 games, it did not play an "alternate number of conference games", and so it cannot benefit from step 2 (because we aren't even considering teams who played 9 games at this step).

This is the part you are missing. It is part of the literal requirement to be considered a "tied team".
 
Calinative said:
I think separately a 8-0 and 8-1 team would be considered tied. Then separately a 8-1 and 7-1 team would be considered tied. But it would not be viewed as a 3 team tie with the 8-0, 8-1, and 7-1 team. And you also do the seeding top down….

So in effect they start with the top 2 team tie breaker between 8-0 and 8-1 team. And determine h2h and then sports source ranking for winner. If the 8-0 team is the winner of tie breaker they are in. And then you go to next tie breaker between the 8-1 team and the 7-1 team with same tie breaker method of h2h then sports source ranking.

If however the 8-1 team is winner of that original tie breaker, then they get the nod and THEN you would determine 2nd place between the 8-0 team and the 7-1 team, which means there is no tie to break, and thus the 8-0 team is in 2nd…

This imo makes sense actually. And given conference size and lack of comparable SOS, UNLESS you completely ignore W-L and go immediately to SportsSpurce/CFp rankings for the full ACC champ selections, this is really only decent way to do it
Click to expand...

Disagree and think all you want, but as written there is no tie between an 8-0 team and an 8-1 team. This is not even ambiguous.

Step 1: Evaluate win percentage. 8-0 = 100% win percentage. 8-1 = 88.9% win percentage. 100% > 88.9%. So that puts the 8-0 team on top. I know, I know... there's a step 2. Let's actually read it.

Step 2: Identify "Any team or teams which played an alternate number of Conference games and have either the same number of Conference wins or the same number of Conference losses as the team(s) identified in Step 1." The 8-1 team does have the same number of conference wins as the 8-0 team identified is Step 1; HOWEVER, it did NOT play an alternate number of conference games (it played a full 9 games in conference). Consequently, it cannot be considered a "tied team".
 
hurricaneman said:
This is the first section:

1. Defining Tied Teams:
a. Step 1: Identify the team or teams with the best Conference win percentage;
plus,
b. Step 2: Any team or teams which played an alternate number of Conference games and have either the same number of Conference wins or the same number of Conference losses as the team(s) identified in Step 1.
c. No other teams may be defined as Tied Teams.

Maybe I'm missing something but there's no way teams with dissimilar number of conference games are ever going to have the same win percentage with matching wins or losses, unless they're both undefeated. So why would the first part stand alone and not be in conjunction with part b?
Click to expand...

Apologies for the successive responses, but I didn't answer this question.

Two reasons: (1) it doesn't stand alone, as I alluded to in my last response; and (2) step 2 is designed specifically to protect teams that play an alternate schedule. Because assuming the same number of losses between two teams, the team that plays one more game will have 1 more win, and will thus have a higher win percentage. Team A is 8-1 and Team B is 7-1. Team A, per Step 1, is the team with the higher winning percentage. But Team B didn't have a chance to play a ninth game (i.e., it had an alternate number of conference games), for that reason, and because they both had 1 loss, Team B qualifies as being tied with Team A.
 
How did they not just say top two in the CFB rankings play the title game? And if CFB changes format, we will revise.
 
OrangeBowlMagic said:
And, shockingly, I have absolutely no idea how it works. The most ACC thing ever.

I understand it's not easy to do with most of your league playing 9 games, but some of your league playing 8 games, but does this make sense to anyone?

Perhaps the 1200 attorneys we have here can break this down for us.

Click to expand...
Yeah... We gotta do a SpongeBob and time to head out.

giphy (1).gif
giphy (2).gif
 
No_Fly_Zone said:
Disagree and think all you want, but as written there is no tie between an 8-0 team and an 8-1 team. This is not even ambiguous.

Step 1: Evaluate win percentage. 8-0 = 100% win percentage. 8-1 = 88.9% win percentage. 100% > 88.9%. So that puts the 8-0 team on top. I know, I know... there's a step 2. Let's actually read it.

Step 2: Identify "Any team or teams which played an alternate number of Conference games and have either the same number of Conference wins or the same number of Conference losses as the team(s) identified in Step 1." The 8-1 team does have the same number of conference wins as the 8-0 team identified is Step 1; HOWEVER, it did NOT play an alternate number of conference games (it played a full 9 games in conference). Consequently, it cannot be considered a "tied team".
Click to expand...
Well that would be quite retarded given the SOS mismatch and size of conference.

Consider this very simple scenario:
- 8-0 team is ranked 1st in conference by sports source. Has H2H victory against team that finished 7-1.
- 8-1 team is ranked 3rd by sports source and has a h2h loss against team that finishes 7-1
- 7-1 team is ranked 2nd by sports source and has h2h loss to team that is 8-0 and h2h win against team that is 8-1

I’m saying that SHOULD result in the 8-0 team and 7-1 team being 1st and 2nd.

What you are saying is the 8-0 team and 8-1 team will finish 1st and 2nd. Which may be true it’s just ******* dumb as ****, given it would basically completely ignore a) mismatched number of games b) h2h result and c) SOS
 
Last edited:
No_Fly_Zone said:
The first step is best winning %. Between an 8-0 team and an 8-1 team, I expect we both agree that is the 8-0 team, right?

So now we move to the next step (i.e., step 2). On its face, for step 2 to apply, the team must have "played an alternate number of conference games" (i.e., 8 games). Because the 8-1 team played 9 games, it did not play an "alternate number of conference games", and so it cannot benefit from step 2 (because we aren't even considering teams who played 9 games at this step).

This is the part you are missing. It is part of the literal requirement to be considered a "tied team".
Click to expand...

This is specifically addressed in the CBS article I posted:

So if one team is 7-2 and another 7-1, they could be considered "tied" for the purposes of the tiebreaker process. This was done, Phillips explained, to both make sure that teams are not punished or helped by having more or fewer conference games than another.

7-2 and 7-1 is no different than 8-0 and 8-1, especially considering the quote from Jim Phillips that says teams are not punished or helped by having more or fewer conference games. You're punishing the 8-1 team in that scenario for having played an extra game. I think you're confusing the language of "alternative number of conference games" meaning it's specific to the teams that only played 8, but it's speaking to a tie between teams that amongst themselves played an alternative number of games.

I think @Calinative has a great question as to how this works with 3 teams and two are tied for different reasons. And he may have answered it.
 
Last edited:
I’m reading it completely 180 from what the strong opinion is in here lmao to me it is saying you aren’t getting penalized if you played more or less. So 7-2 and 6-2 are tied. I would think win percentage is if the tie breaker needs to be between teams who DID play the same number of games. Idk. Maybe I’m an idiot lol
 
OrangeBowlMagic said:
And, shockingly, I have absolutely no idea how it works. The most ACC thing ever.

I understand it's not easy to do with most of your league playing 9 games, but some of your league playing 8 games, but does this make sense to anyone?

Perhaps the 1200 attorneys we have here can break this down for us.

Click to expand...
Tie Breakers 1-5:
- Does it ***** the Miami Hurricanes, Y/N?
-- If Y, Tie Breaker stands
-- If N, continue with Tie Breakers 6-10 until Miami Hurricanes are screwed

Close thread.
 
hurricaneman said:
This is specifically addressed in the CBS article I posted:

So if one team is 7-2 and another 7-1, they could be considered "tied" for the purposes of the tiebreaker process. This was done, Phillips explained, to both make sure that teams are not punished or helped by having more or fewer conference games than another.
Click to expand...

It's not "specifically" addressed. It's addressed by example, without reference to the actual rule suppled by the ACC. So the person who drafted the article is also reading the rule incorrectly? Ok.

Here's the the preamble to the actual rule published by the ACC:

"The Top Two Teams shall be the two ACC teams with the highest percentage of Conference wins during all regular-season Conference competition and/or team(s) which played an alternate number of Conference games and have either the same number of Conference wins or the same number of Conference losses as the team(s) with the highest percentage of Conference wins."

If your interpretation is correct, why would the ACC include the bolded language... twice (in the preamble AND in section 1.b.)?

hurricaneman said:
7-2 and 7-1 is no different than 8-0 and 8-1, especially considering the quote from Jim Phillips that says teams are not punished or helped by having more or fewer conference games. You're punishing the 8-1 team in that scenario for having played an extra game. I think you're confusing the language of "alternative number of conference games" meaning it's specific to the teams that only played 8, but it's speaking to a tie between teams that amongst themselves played an alternative number of games.
Click to expand...

Since when does the ACC care about their rules being fair or making the most sense or not punishing teams? When 1/4 of your teams play 8 conference games and 3/4 of your teams play 9 conference games, fair is out the window.

hurricaneman said:
I think @Calinative has a great question as to how this works with 3 teams and two are tied for different reasons. And he may have answered it.
Click to expand...

To be clear, I'm not arguing the rule is fair or not stupid. But arguing "it can't be that way because that's an unfair result" does not move the needle with me one iota. The ACC does stupid and unfair things all the time.
 
Calinative said:
Well that would be quite retarded given the SOS mismatch and size of conference.

Consider this very simple scenario:
- 8-0 team is ranked 1st in conference by sports source. Has H2H victory against team that finished 7-1.
- 8-1 team is ranked 2nd by sports source and has a h2h loss against team that finishes 7-1
- 7-1 team is ranked 2nd by sports source and has h2h loss to team that is 8-0 and h2h win against team that is 8-1

I’m saying that SHOULD result in the 8-0 team and 7-1 team being 1st and 2nd.

What you are saying is the 8-0 team and 8-1 team will finish 1st and 2nd. Which may be true it’s just ******* dumb as ****, given it would basically completely ignore a) mismatched number of games b) h2h result and c) SOS
Click to expand...

To be clear, I wasn't providing an opinion on the soundness of the rule. I was providing an analytical interpretation of the rule, as it is written.

Frankly, both interpretations have problems, and this was bound to be arguably unfair and open to criticism the moment the ACC decided most teams would play 9 in-conference games, but some teams would play 8. That was the first mongoloid domino to fall in this cascade of stupidity.

As far as your scenario, that is not at all what I am saying (or have said). Between the 8-0 team, 8-1 team, and 7-1 team, the 8-0 team has the highest win percentage and is in 1st place. No tie breaker needed. Now you fill the second team spot. The 8-1 has the higher win percentage, but because the 7-1 team played an "alternate number of conference games" (i.e., 8 games) AND has the same number of losses as the 8-1 team, the 8-1 team and 7-1 teams are "tied teams" and go to the 2-team tiebreaker. And since the 8-1 team lost to the 7-1 team H2H (the 1st tie breaker), the 7-1 team gets the second spot. In this instance, my analysis yields the same result as what you think should happen.
 
It's not "specifically" addressed. It's addressed by example, without reference to the actual rule suppled by the ACC. So the person who drafted the article is also reading the rule incorrectly? Ok.
Click to expand...

I'm just telling you that they're writing about a specific scenario and then indirectly quoting the commissioner of the league on that scenario. That is a better source than anybody here trying to interpret it.
 
Kinda out of the box here, but if you wanted to, you could weigh each loss. If the 6-2 and 6-3 are tied, why not average the SOS or something? The better losses move on. At that point, you lose your right to complain (as my fingers are crossed we don’t have to worry about it)
 
hurricaneman said:
I'm just telling you that they're writing about a specific scenario and then indirectly quoting the commissioner of the league on that scenario. That is a better source than anybody here trying to interpret it.
Click to expand...

For starters, there is no such thing as "indirectly quoting." He's either being quoted or he's not. And if he's not, then it's just some online sports writer's interpretation. Here's what Phillips actually said at ACC media day regarding the tie-breaker system (he also answered a question later on re: the sports source analytics, but that's not relevant to this discussion so I'm not quoting it):

"This year also marks the introduction of a new championship tiebreaking procedure. Following a thoughtful data-driven review by our athletic directors, including the evaluation of more than 10,000 simulated season outcomes, we have adopted an approach that is built on three guiding principles.

First, head-to-head results will always matter most.

Second, no team will be unfairly rewarded or penalized based on the number of conference games it played.

Third, when head-to-head competition cannot separate tied teams, the team with strongest overall body of work will earn the opportunity to compete for the ACC Championship and the CFP AQ.

We'll share full details shortly. I think there's going to be a sheet passed around. But we're confident this approach is fair, transparent, data-informed, and assures our game features the two most deserving teams."

247sports.com

Everything ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips Said at the 2026 ACC Football Kickoff Press Conference

ACC Commissioner Jim Phillips opened the 2026 ACC Football Kickoff media event this morning with conference achievements, a question-and-answer session, and more.
247sports.com 247sports.com

As you can read for yourself, Phillips was never provided that "specific scenario" or even went into detail on the rules or how they work. Nor, by the way, does your article ever make that claim, or even that Phillip's "explanation" was in response to this "specific scenario" (which clearly is an example the writer made up as a "for instance" for the reader). Based on the transcript, we know none of that happened, but here's the actual CBS article, in case anyone wants a solid example of the sort of BS CBS Sports tries to pass off as sports journalism:

www.cbssports.com

ACC unveils new tiebreaker rules after last year's 5-way tie nearly produced CFP disaster scenario

The ACC's new tiebreaker policies will focus on 'team quality' after the league came dangerously close to missing out on the College Football Playoff in 2025,
www.cbssports.com www.cbssports.com

I won't comment on what a "better source" is. There are gullible people everywhere who are happy to believe people providing summaries without any analysis. I prefer to do my own analysis and not rely on some random person on CBS with media credentials.
 
Back
Top