Template talk:2016 Mountain West Conference football standings

tie-breaker

 * Wyoming xy	 	6–2 8–4
 * Boise State x	 	6–2 10–2
 * New Mexico x	 	6–2 8–4

There is ongoing debate as to whether BSU and NM are co-champions. As the IP (Wyonming-only) isn't instigating a discussion, I am doing so. I think there is currently weak support for Wyoming-only.
 * Mountain West Conference Football Championship Game give an unsourced statement of: "The division champion is the team with the highest conference winning percentage."
 * PDF gives us "In the event of a percentage tie for a divisional championship between two teams, if one team was the winner of the Conference game between the two teams, it shall be the divisional champion." (undated, wish we could locate a Mountain West link to this doc.
 * 2014 SB Nation affiliate story gives us "Divisional Champions. A divisional champion shall be the team with the highest winning percentage in all Conference games, both inter‐divisional and intra‐divisional, in the division. (Adopted January 2013)".

Thoughts? Editing as a means to engage the other editors. UW Dawgs (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The MW calls Wyoming, Boise State, and New Mexico "tri-champions" in its own official press release announcing Wyoming as the title game host:
 * "Under third-year head coach Craig Bohl, the Cowboys (6-2 MW, 8-4 overall) are Mountain Division tri-champions with Boise State and New Mexico, but win the tie-breaker to advance to the championship game."
 * I think this may be enough to settle the discussion. — Dale Arnett (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with Dale (H/T). Opposing editors are welcome to show conflicting citations, if any exist. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I was the IP address that changed it to begin with. In 2014 when Fresno State and San Diego State tied someone pointed me to the official tiebreaker rules from the conference and said that they do not recognize co-champions. I thought what I read then backed up that assertion. However, rereading it it clearly says "In the event of a percentage tie for a divisional championship between more than two teams...", I read that as saying all teams that tie would be considered co-champs. So yes, I guess they should all be listed as co-champs. Strangely Boise State has said absolutely nothing about being co-champs while New Mexico seems very excited about it. I guess maybe because it's been awhile since New Mexico has won any kind of title yet Boise is disappointed and use to winning.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Sortation
Related (new thread), if this is determined to be a tri-championship which seems likely, the teams should be sorted per norms. The application of the tie-breaker to select a championship game participant doesn't trump or elevate the standings within the co-champions. So: Thoughts? UW Dawgs (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Boise State x	 	6–2 10–2
 * New Mexico x	 	6–2 8–4
 * Wyoming xy	 	6–2 8–4
 * I would say the championship game participant should still be listed first.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)