iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

In the Sun Belt, the tiebreaker only restarts after the top team among the tied teams is determined, after which that team is placed in that seed for future comparisons and the rest all start the tiebreak over. It does not restart otherwise. The Sun Belt does not have this fully documented.

000

I've completed checking my results against official brackets, and other than some date/time issues and one case where I didn't mark an ineligible team ineligible, the Sun Belt and SoCon issues are the only ones that needed fixing. I neglected to put the Sun Belt issue on BlueSky. Here's the recap:

100

1. B10 mbb 26.6% 2. SEC m 16.0 3. B12 m 11.4 4. ACC m 10.9 5. BEast m 6.0 6. B10 w 4.1 7. MWC m 3.1 8. MVC m 2.5 9. B12 w 1.8 10. Sun Belt m 1.6 11. AAC m 1.4 12. MAC m 1.3 13. A10 m 1.3 14. CAA m 1.0 15. ACC w 0.9 16. Horizon m 0.8 17. Southern m 0.8 All others: 8.6% (2/2)

000

Since Jan 1, around 448k basketball tiebreak scenarios were generated at the site. This is virtually the same as each of the past two seasons have had. By conference: (1/2)

mred53 @notnothing.net · 08/03/2026

And then it was offline again, but I think it's fixed now

000

mred53 @notnothing.net · 08/03/2026

I'm not sure why the site was offline for a while there. The moment I realized it and tried to do something about it, it was back online.

mred53 @notnothing.net · 01/03/2026

Of the conferences that finished up yesterday, the one mismatch I saw compared to my site was SoCon MBB. I haven't seen a published SoCon tiebreaker in a few years, but apparently they break h2h ties first before going on to other tiebreakers. This is now fixed.

000

mred53 @notnothing.net · 26/02/2026

My code is set up to ignore round-robin comparisons that aren't full round robins. A code issue meant this wasn't always working correctly in the code, but I think it's fixed now. This impacts conferences that don't have every team play every other team (e.g. Sun Belt).

000

mred53 @notnothing.net · 18/02/2026

My tiebreaker logic has been updated to reflect this.

000

mred53 @notnothing.net · 18/02/2026

MBB says: "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 tiebreaker" img.boostsport.ai/boost-cms/20...

100

mred53 @notnothing.net · 18/02/2026

A note on the Big 10 tiebreakers: I discovered today that the MBB and WBB tiebreakers are not identical in the Big 10. WBB says: "Once a seed is awarded, all remaining tied teams shall restart the tiebreak process at the first criteria". img.boostsport.ai/boost-cms/20...

100

mred53 @notnothing.net · 16/02/2026

When comparing against teams top-down in the seeding, 2-0 is better than 1-0 and 0-1 is better than 0-2 ONLY IF comparing record vs a group of teams, not a single team. I'm not sure why they interpret it that way, but I'm going with that logic.

000

mred53 @notnothing.net · 16/02/2026

Based on some inside info, I have updated the Atlantic 10 tiebreaker to reflect how the conference believes it's tiebreaker should be interpreted:

200

mred53 @notnothing.net · 04/02/2026

I've now added a large neon banner that shows up near the "Calculate Seeds" button if a past game has the wrong result selected, so the user should now be aware when that's happening. (2/2)

000

mred53 @notnothing.net · 04/02/2026

I've removed the auto-refreshing the game selection page on my site used to do. The initial purpose was to fix a problem where some browsers would stubbornly maintain old game selections even after game results updated, so completed games would have wrong results selected. (1/2)

100

mred53 @notnothing.net · 10/12/2025

That's exactly what it is. When there are teams with zero games, you get divide-by-zero errors. I'm not going to bother fixing it because I think the effort involved would be way more than it's worth.

mred53 @notnothing.net · 01/12/2025

9. Sun Belt 0.2% (2.0k; 2.4k ls) 10. Pac 12 0.04% (388; 327 ls) Last season SEC and Big 12 were 94.4% of all generated scenarios. This season they were only 61.9% of generated scenarios, as the site got more traction among other conferences.

mred53 @notnothing.net · 01/12/2025

Overall, by conference: 1. SEC 37.7% (331k; 640k last season) 2. ACC 28.6% (251k; 18k ls) 3. Big 12 24.2% (213k; 298k ls) 4. Big 10 4.8% (43k; 23k ls) 5. MAC 1.6% (14k; 6.8k ls) 6. AAC 1.4% (12k; 1.4k ls) 7. MWC 1.1% (9.4k; 2.1k ls) 8. CUSA 0.3% (2.7k; 1.6k ls)

mred53 @notnothing.net · 01/12/2025

Football season roundup: For the season (Oct 1 through Nov 30) there were around 878k user scenarios generated. This was around 12% less than last season. SEC was way down but still #1, while ACC was WAY up.

120

mred53 @notnothing.net · 26/11/2025

My changes to CUSA didn't get saved earlier today, but it should be good now.

000

It was pointed out that the CUSA tiebreaker apparently changed this season. The "Modified" date in the pdf properties is 11/16, so it was likely uploaded on or after that date. I've updated my CUSA logic to match.

... for second place where it's not clear that the teams in that tiebreaker are heavily dependent on SS ranking. (6/6)

000

I could easily change my site to match that, but since I don't have the SportsSource rankings anyway, I think it's less confusing to just leave it as a three-way tie broken by SS ranking. Otherwise, I'm showing a two-team tiebreaker ... (5/ )

100

...the SportsSource rankings step. For some reason, the MAC only selectes the top team via SS ranking and then heads back to the two-team tiebreaker for the other two teams rather than rank all of them in that step. (4/ )

100

I've updated my logic to match. Two important thing to note: 1. I do not have access to SportsSource rankings. My site basically just places them alphabetically. 2. In MAC scenarios 9 and 10, there is a three way tie for first place heading into ... (3/ )

100

The tiebreaker last year was 1. H2H (if full round robin or one team beat all the others), 2. common opponents, 3. common opponents top-down in standings, 4. opponent record, 5. SportsSource rating. They have apparently streamlined it by removing steps 3 and 4. (2/ )

100

2025 MAC Football Championship Game Tiebreakers

The MAC removed the tiebreaker document from their site (from 2024) and released tiebreaker scenarios. It's clear from the scenarios that they changed the tiebreaker logic in 2025 without publicly releasing it. getsomemaction.com/news/2025/11... (1/ )

getsomemaction.com

Potential 2025 MAC Football Championship Game Scenarios

I've changed my logic to match that, so now I think my results match the conference. I guess it depends on the definition of "remaining teams" in the tiebreaker procedure. This should only impact ties involving four or more teams. (4/4)

000

So what I think is happening is they are not restarting the tiebreaker for the other three after ASU was selected, though it says "After one team has an advantage and is “seeded”, all remaining teams in the multiple-team tiebreaker will repeat the tie-breaking procedure." (3/ )

100

I thought maybe it's because I was restarting the tiebreaker steps when four got cut down to three and maybe the conference wasn't doing that, but changing that made Utah and BYU the top two, not ASU and BYU. (2/ )

100

I forgot to post this yesterday: There is a discrepancy between my tiebreaker and the scenarios released by the conference. According to the conference, if Tech and BYU lose, and Utah and ASU win, BYU is in the championship game. My site was saying ASU and Tech would be. (1/ )

mred53 @notnothing.net · 16/11/2025

Once Georgia is determined to be above Ole Miss and Alabama on Opponent Winning Percentage, the tiebreaker is then restarted between Ole Miss and Alabama even though Alabama had a higher Opponent Winning Percentage than Ole Miss. The reason is explained in FAQ #3 at the bottom of the result page.

mred53 @notnothing.net · 12/11/2025

Special thanks to the Horizon League for introducing a format so weird I had to re-code my bracket graphic generator. On the plus side, this new functionality means that conferences who have one round split across two days (MEAC, MAAC, Big Sky, etc) are now easier to read. (2/2)

000

mred53 @notnothing.net · 12/11/2025

2025-2026 basketball (MBB and WBB) is up and running. I haven't checked for any tiebreaker rule changes, but I have updated tournament bracket formats for each conference (or my best guess at it for conferences who haven't released them yet). (1/2)

210

mred53 @notnothing.net · 11/11/2025

I appreciate it! I hope to have 25-26 basketball up and running within the next week or so.

100

mred53 @notnothing.net · 11/11/2025

My interpretation is that a team being selected as #1 in the group is still eliminated from the tie. They aren't eliminated from contention, but they are technically eliminated from the tie. I do agree this is ambiguous at best in the ACC rules, though.

mred53 @notnothing.net · 10/11/2025

I've made a correction to my Pac 12 tiebreaker, believe it or not. A twitter user pointed out that the Nov 1 game between OSU and WSU was NOT technically a conference game. The Nov 29 game is the only Pac 12 conference game. This has been fixed.

mred53 @notnothing.net · 07/11/2025

There was an issue where in some cases people going to bball.notnothing.net were getting a default placeholder page instead of the actual website. I think this is now fixed, but let me know if there are any issues accessing the site.

bball.notnothing.net

000

ACC document is here: theacc.com/documents/20... Thanks to @beebrave.bsky.social for bringing this up.

theacc.com

...on exactly what happens here, but I think it's more likely that, once a team is dropped out of the tie, they are permanently dropped out. So if A, B, and C are determined to be above D, then D is permanently #4. (2/)

100

I've made a small change to the ACC logic: If teams A, B, C, and D are all tied, my old logic had the tiebreaker running until the top team was determined, and then the tiebreaker would restart for all remaining teams. The ACC tiebreaker document is not clear ... (1/)

210

I've made a change to interpret it that way. As for your second question, I think the Big 10 is the only conference that re-runs the tiebreak for the top two teams (if tied) to determine the home team after everything is set.

This is definitely a case where the ACC rules are ambiguous. The question is what "eliminate team(s) from the tie" means. The more I think about it, the more I agree with what you are saying -- the intent as worded is that a team removed from a tie is removed permanently.