[Papa John]

<snip>
So, I'm not complaining about our seeding--it's just a silly system.

How would you fix it? I don't mean that as any sort of pejorative, I'm just not sure how to do better.

I've stated elsewhere that the first tiebreaker should be games above .500, so that a 1-0 team is not ranked higher than a 17-1 team. In reality, Oregon and USC both finished 10 games over .500, but Oregon was seeded #1 because they played two fewer games and therefore had a higher winning percentage. But in the only game they managed to play, USC defeated Oregon. So I think USC has a bonafide complaint--on the other hand, it's USC, so I don't care that much.

In this case, Stanford and OSU have identical 10-10 conference records and were 1-1 head-to-head. Oregon State split against USC and Stanford was 0-2, so OSU still comes out ahead even if USC had been ranked first in the conference.

[Papa John]

<snip>
So, I'm not complaining about our seeding--it's just a silly system.

How would you fix it? I don't mean that as any sort of pejorative, I'm just not sure how to do better.

I've stated elsewhere that the first tiebreaker should be games above .500, so that a 1-0 team is not ranked higher than a 17-1 team. In reality, Oregon and USC both finished 10 games over .500, but Oregon was seeded #1 because they played two fewer games and therefore had a higher winning percentage. But in the only game they managed to play, USC defeated Oregon. So I think USC has a bonafide complaint--on the other hand, it's USC, so I don't care that much.

In this case, Stanford and OSU have identical 10-10 conference records and were 1-1 head-to-head. Oregon State split against USC and Stanford was 0-2, so OSU still comes out ahead even if USC had been ranked first in the conference.