forums

2026 ACC Tiebreaker Unveiled at Media Days

Tiebreaker will be the head coach of each of the two teams will square off in the octagon for a five round bare knuckle showdown

I like our odds…
 
SyracuseMiami said:
I am probably missing something but why isn't it this simple:

1. league record
2. Head to head
3. Highest ranking in the CFP
Click to expand...
I mean it is. The problem is some teams play more league games so if it was antrictly by League Win%, the advantage goes to the team who played more games. and there are so many teams with such different SOS’s, so ****** teams will have elevated wins in league.
 
No_Fly_Zone said:
Again, no to the bolded. An 8-0 team does NOT tie an 8-1 team. The 8-0 team has the better winning percentage, so they are not "tied teams" pursuant to Section 1. The section you are quoting from starts with "once the tied teams have been determined," making it inapplicable in your example. And if you are thinking Section 1.b. can be applied to have an 8-1 team "tie" an 8-0 team, you are misreading that section, which can only ever apply for the benefit of the team playing the alternate schedule (i.e., 8 games).

The part in italics is correct, though, but you're expressing it opposite of how I would. The 8-1 team has the better winning percentage than the 7-1 team. But, under Section 1.b., the 7-1 team is considered tied with the 8-1 team.
Click to expand...
i think you're wrongg though you should be right
 
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...
specifically in tie breakers and when head to head doesnt come into play especiallly in 3 or more tied - no because they are not looking it that way. they are saying no one will ever get punished for playing one more less or more game and it works that way both on losses and wins. its ****ed but an 8-0 and 8-1 team are presumed the same from everything i've read
 
FWIW< AI answer

Yes, under the newly announced ACC rules, an 8-0 team and an 8-1 team are legally considered "tied" because they share the exact same number of conference wins (8).
The official ACC Tiebreaker Policy specifically accounts for uneven scheduling by defining teams as tied if they match in either the win column or the loss column. This prevents a team that plays 9 conference games from being penalized with a loss compared to a team that only plays 8. [1, 2]
Because they are officially tied, the 8-0 record does not automatically win. Instead, the ACC applies its formal tiebreaker protocol to separate them: [1]
  • Step 1: Head-to-Head: If they played each other, the winner of that game gets the higher spot.
  • Step 2: SportSource Analytics: If they did not play head-to-head, the ACC defers to the Team Success Ranking from SportSource Analytics to evaluate their overall strength of schedule and body of work. If the 8-1 team played a significantly harder schedule, they could actually be ranked ahead of the 8-0 team. [1, 2, 3]
 
Hufftwoseven said:
******* hilarious. Everyone who was involved with expanding the conference to an uneven amount of teams should be fired. I can’t wait for Miami to leave the ACC
Click to expand...
The ACC is the only conference letting playoff teams keep 100% of CFP revenue. **** that trophy, **** the refs, and **** the ACC as a mfing crew, but, gimmie the loot 7 days a week, twice on Sundays.
 
Santana Sosa said:
The ACC is the only conference letting playoff teams keep 100% of CFP revenue. **** that trophy, **** the refs, and **** the ACC as a mfing crew, but, gimmie the loot 7 days a week, twice on Sundays.
Click to expand...
dude last year was it. the payout for the conferences now per team totally change this year forward.

too lazy to type it so ai will but his actually correct

Beginning with the 2026–2027 season, the College Football Playoff (CFP) is shifting away from performance-based success bonuses to a fixed-percentage revenue model that significantly favors the Big Ten and SEC. [1, 2, 3]
Previously, a base payout was given to conferences, and individual teams could win additional millions for their school or conference by advancing through each round of the bracket. Moving forward, the total CFP pool is divided using locked-in conference percentages based largely on historical appearances. [1, 2, 3]
The New Conference Payout Model
Because of this new contract, individual team payouts will change drastically based purely on what conference they belong to, creating an unprecedented financial gap: [1, 2, 3]
ConferenceTotal Revenue SplitApproximate Payout Per School
Big Ten~29%$21+ Million per school
SEC~29%$21+ Million per school
ACC~17%$13 Million per school
Big 12~15%$12 Million per school
Group of 5 (Combined)~9%$1.8 Million per school
Under this layout, a bottom-tier team that wins zero games in the SEC or Big Ten will take home significantly more CFP money annually than a team from the ACC or Big 12 that makes a deep playoff run. [1]
 
Ispyin said:
dude last year was it. the payout for the conferences now per team totally change this year forward.

too lazy to type it so ai will but his actually correct

Beginning with the 2026–2027 season, the College Football Playoff (CFP) is shifting away from performance-based success bonuses to a fixed-percentage revenue model that significantly favors the Big Ten and SEC. [1, 2, 3]
Previously, a base payout was given to conferences, and individual teams could win additional millions for their school or conference by advancing through each round of the bracket. Moving forward, the total CFP pool is divided using locked-in conference percentages based largely on historical appearances. [1, 2, 3]
The New Conference Payout Model
Because of this new contract, individual team payouts will change drastically based purely on what conference they belong to, creating an unprecedented financial gap: [1, 2, 3]

ConferenceTotal Revenue SplitApproximate Payout Per School
Big Ten~29%$21+ Million per school
SEC~29%$21+ Million per school
ACC~17%$13 Million per school
Big 12~15%$12 Million per school
Group of 5 (Combined)~9%$1.8 Million per school
Under this layout, a bottom-tier team that wins zero games in the SEC or Big Ten will take home significantly more CFP money annually than a team from the ACC or Big 12 that makes a deep playoff run. [1]
Click to expand...
The good thing about facts....they can alter opinions. **** this lame *** conference. lol
 
No_Fly_Zone said:
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.
Click to expand...
But the 8-0 and 8-1 team ALSO played an alt number of games in that scenario. So why would you consider the 8-1 team and 7-1 team as tied but not the 8-0 and 8-1 team? Strictly because you're saying ONLY same number of losses can result in a tie? I mean after all The 8-1 team Absolutely has the Better Win% than the 7-1 team.... That's just mathematically a fact.

Like What exactly would be the point of them saying they wouldn't punish a team for playing fewer games if they strictly went based on Win% then? Thats what doesn't make any sense to not count Same Number of Wins OR same number of losses as a "tie" in this sense. A team that plays more games and has same amount of wins will always have the better Win%. So that statement wouldn't even make sense then is the point I guess. All the main possibilities for ACC Champ contenders:

9-0 = 9/9 = 100%
8-0 = 8/8 = 100%
8-1 = 8/9 = 88.9%
7-1 = 7/8 = 87.5%
7-2 = 7/9 = 77.8%
6-2 = 6/8 = 75%

There is no mathematical way to say any team tied with a different amount of games played is my point if we are saying strictly win% is how it is determined.

So again fundamentally how can you say the 8-0 team is NOT tied with the 8-1 team, but the 8-1 team IS tied with the 7-1 team? A 9-0 team certainly isn't tied with an 8-1 team... But There is a clear breakdown in how an 8-0 team vs a 8-1 team should be treated. What if that 8-0 team had the easiest SOS in the league, but the 8-1 team played the hardest?... For example I can shift this to the 8-0 team played an easy SOS and thus was ranked 3rd by Sports Source and had NO H2H victory against against a competitor. And so then the 8-1 team had a H2H win against the 7-1 team And was ranked 1st by Sports Source. Okay now here there would be no argument that the two teams in would be the 8-0 team and the 8-1 Team... HOWEVER I think it SHOULD be considered a tie between the 8-0 team and 8-1 team given they played different number of games, they didn't play H2H, and then the SportSource rankings has the 8-1 team ranked ahead, should mean that the 8-1 team is the 1 seed. THEN it goes down to the 8-0 team and 7-1 team to determine 2nd place, in which case the result is obvious....


I think how the ACC actually will view this is by claiming the 8-0 and 8-1 team are "the Top 2" and they will be the representative no matter what. But I think technically the 8-0 and 8-1 team will be viewed as tied and then it'll come down to h2H or Sportsource ranking to determine actual seed. This imo is a mistake not to basically go sequentially. It SHOULD be first determine 1 seed, THEN re-apply reasoning to determing 2 seed.
 
Last edited:
HNRv0jkWAAAWYAY


So yeah if in my scenario there is team that is 8-0, 8-1, and 7-1.... It goes to conference win% which is the 8-0 team at 100%, But then you have to determine if any teams meet the definition of tied with them, which is same wins or same losses AND played different number of games. Which the 8-1 team DOES meet. Therefore they are considered the top 2 teams and the only teams that are tied. That means the 8-0 and 8-1 team are the top two, BUT tie breaker goes H2H, then SportsSource Ranking. Which does mean the 8-1 team can be ranked ahead of the 8-0 team in seeding.

Personally I think it is a mistake to not treat it as a sequential/cascading seeding, where you go through these steps to determine 1 seed, then remove that team and re apply the steps to determine 2 seed.,
 
Last edited:
Calinative said:
HNRv0jkWAAAWYAY


So yeah if in my scenario there is team that is 8-0, 8-1, and 7-1.... It goes to conference win% which is the 8-0 team at 100%, But then you have to determine if any teams meet the definition of tied with them, which is same wins or same losses. Which the 8-1 team DOES meet. Therefore they are considered the top 2 teams and the only teams that are tied. That means the 8-0 and 8-1 team are the top two, BUT tie breaker goes H2H, then SportsSource Ranking. Which does mean the 8-1 team can be ranked ahead of the 8-0 team in seeding.

Personally I think it is a mistake to not treat it as a sequential/cascading seeding, where you go through these steps to determine 1 seed, then remove that team and re apply the steps to determine 2 seed.,
Click to expand...

No, it does not. The 8-1 team played 9 games. It did not play an "alternate number of conference games." You need 2 things for step 2 to apply to your team: (1) play only 8 conference games; and (2) have the same number of wins or losses as the top win % team vying for that spot.

Edit: To be fair, I am reading "alternate number of conference games" as 8 games, because that seems appropriate when 12/17 team play 9 games. If the ACC meant "different than the team in step 1," that would be in line with your interpretation. Though if that is the case, it's a poorly worded rule (which probably is par for the course for the ACC, which is maybe your best argument).
 
Last edited:
Let's just roll dice before the season - or draw cards - and winner is declared the ACC champion.

Just save all the drama and stupidity of the ACC's current "system."

Those in charge that come up with this level of doo-doo don't have just one extra chromosome - they have THREE extras!
 
No_Fly_Zone said:
No, it does not. The 8-1 team played 9 games. It did not play an "alternate number of conference games." You need 2 things for step 2 to apply to your team: (1) play only 8 conference games; and (2) have the same number of wins or losses as the top win % team vying for that spot.

Edit: To be fair, I am reading "alternate number of conference games" as 8 games, because that seems appropriate when 12/17 team play 9 games. If the ACC meant "different than the team in step 1," that would be in line with your interpretation. Though if that is the case, it's a poorly worded rule (which probably is par for the course for the ACC, which is maybe your best argument).
Click to expand...
I think the latter, alternate just meaning a different amount of games between two teams, that the total league games played make it effectively impossible to have the same Win% and make a "true tie". There is no "standard" number of games, though they want a 9 game conference schedule. The reason there are teams playing 8 after all is because 5 teams play ND yearly, but ND is still considered a Non-Con game for league purposes. Why they wouldn't just mandate 9 League games AND have the 5 still play ND on top of that.... who the **** knows man, who knows. (actually it's prob because success initiative to give top schools more ratings and thus money is accomplished in part by having ND play top schools more often and other top schools play eachother, which leads to a more difficult SOS, AND those top schools typically already have Non-Con SEC rivalries that they do.... so basically its cause like FSU/Clemson would I guess ***** about having to play 9League games - likely including us, ND, and UF/SouthCarolina? idk...)

I think it is clearly saying
1. ID the team with the Highest Win%
2. Do any teams have that Same Win%?
3. Do any teams have the Same amount of Wins or Losses as that team AND played 1 fewer or 1 more game than them.
4. How many teams are tied, which is answering yes to requirements from pt2 and/or pt3?
TieBreaker A. If 2 -> H2H -> SportSource
TieBreaker B. If 3+ -> H2H between the tied teams when possible -> SportSource
 
Last edited:
Calinative said:
But the 8-0 and 8-1 team ALSO played an alt number of games in that scenario. So why would you consider the 8-1 team and 7-1 team as tied but not the 8-0 and 8-1 team? Strictly because you're saying ONLY same number of losses can result in a tie? I mean after all The 8-1 team Absolutely has the Better Win% than the 7-1 team.... That's just mathematically a fact.

Like What exactly would be the point of them saying they wouldn't punish a team for playing fewer games if they strictly went based on Win% then? Thats what doesn't make any sense to not count Same Number of Wins OR same number of losses as a "tie" in this sense. A team that plays more games and has same amount of wins will always have the better Win%. So that statement wouldn't even make sense then is the point I guess. All the main possibilities for ACC Champ contenders:

9-0 = 9/9 = 100%
8-0 = 8/8 = 100%
8-1 = 8/9 = 88.9%
7-1 = 7/8 = 87.5%
7-2 = 7/9 = 77.8%
6-2 = 6/8 = 75%

There is no mathematical way to say any team tied with a different amount of games played is my point if we are saying strictly win% is how it is determined.

So again fundamentally how can you say the 8-0 team is NOT tied with the 8-1 team, but the 8-1 team IS tied with the 7-1 team? A 9-0 team certainly isn't tied with an 8-1 team... But There is a clear breakdown in how an 8-0 team vs a 8-1 team should be treated. What if that 8-0 team had the easiest SOS in the league, but the 8-1 team played the hardest?... For example I can shift this to the 8-0 team played an easy SOS and thus was ranked 3rd by Sports Source and had NO H2H victory against against a competitor. And so then the 8-1 team had a H2H win against the 7-1 team And was ranked 1st by Sports Source. Okay now here there would be no argument that the two teams in would be the 8-0 team and the 8-1 Team... HOWEVER I think it SHOULD be considered a tie between the 8-0 team and 8-1 team given they played different number of games, they didn't play H2H, and then the SportSource rankings has the 8-1 team ranked ahead, should mean that the 8-1 team is the 1 seed. THEN it goes down to the 8-0 team and 7-1 team to determine 2nd place, in which case the result is obvious....


I think how the ACC actually will view this is by claiming the 8-0 and 8-1 team are "the Top 2" and they will be the representative no matter what. But I think technically the 8-0 and 8-1 team will be viewed as tied and then it'll come down to h2H or Sportsource ranking to determine actual seed. This imo is a mistake not to basically go sequentially. It SHOULD be first determine 1 seed, THEN re-apply reasoning to determing 2 seed.
Click to expand...

This is all confusing as ****, but at its base: two teams with the same amount of wins or losses in conference are considered tied in any need for a tiebreaker, where head to head doesn't come into play in any 2 or more scenario, including undefeated 8-0 team vs 8-1 team. Tied

Same thing on the losses side.

But there is no transitive property, meaning an 8-0 team who is tied on one tiebreaker level with an 8-1 team because of same wins, and that 8-1 team is tied with a 7-1 team because of the same losses, does not mean the 7-1 team is also tied with the 8-0 team. You resolve the first one first.
 
Back
Top