Can anyone explain the western conference final standings?

Can anyone explain on exactly what technical basis the Riders won the western conference? The Riders had the same points over all as Calgary. Calgary had the same points scored for and the Riders had more points scored against them for the over all season final stats. So, I was wondering on what basis did the Riders actually finish in first place this year in the western conference? Do you know? Please fill me in!

Season series.

Riders were 2-0-1 against Calgary and that is the second tie breaker (after total number of wins).

Riders won the season series against Calgary

Okay, thanx. Now I know and I can explain it to my momma. Now I wont get another wooping maybe?

No, you should get one just for posterity, it builds character.

I am a little confused, both Riders and Calgary have 21 points, they both have 514 points for and Calgary has fewer points against. Calgary also has a better record against the division. So I am just curious how the standings are calculated. Did the riders win the season series against Calgary and thats why they are in first?

Season series victors.

When two or more member Clubs are tied in the final Division standings at the
conclusion of the regular season schedule, preferential ranking for playoff purposes
shall be determined on the basis of the following priorities and shall be awarded to
the club that:


b) has won the greater number of games played against the other tied Club(Calgary)


got ya, where would the division standings rank in that?

Calgary has a one game advatage over the riders in the final division ranks.

I thought the Riders got first over a Canadian Country wide vote? :wink: Rider Nation

so if there is a tie it's...

  1. season series record
  2. division record

Tiebreaker rules are given here:


  1. Who has the most wins;
  2. Who won the season series;
  3. Who has the better points for minus points against from the season series;
  4. Who has the better points for divided by points against from the season series;
  5. Who has the better divisional record;
  6. Who has the better points for minus points against in all divisional games;
  7. Who has the better points for divided by points against in all divisional games;
  8. Who has the better points for minus points against from the entire season;
  9. Who has the better points for divided by points against from the entire season;
  10. Coin toss.

Rarely do I see it going past #6 - usually it's settled by #3. Had Calgary beat Saskatchewan by 1 point, they'd have taken 1st based on having a better divisional record.

No, head-to-head between tied teams -- first wins, then net aggregate, then net quotient -- should come before division. A tie between two teams shouldn't be broken based on how they did against OTHER teams unless it's absolutely necessary.

If 3 is tied, wouldn't 4 also be tied? I'm saying (probably wrong, it's early Monday morning) that a tie in 3 would indicate equal for and against for both teams, so the quotient would also be equal would it not?

sorry dave, I have to disagree, and you know why. Rather have penaties used instead of points, too bad the refs are too poorly trained for that to happen. Still one can rest on the fact that Saskatchewan commited fewer penaties than Calgary, and was the only tie in the end, and I;m glad the seson series was the real difference, thats better than anything.

Where did penalties come from? Why not just use total passing yards or something?

The reason the +/- comes in right after season series, in my view, is that if the season series is tied, +/- between the teams is the logical next step in determining who won the season series. Like how they used to have home-and-home playoff games and the total points in both games was considered.

hm interesting conparation.

Penaties is a rule suggestion I have in another thread, here…


and I just don’t think its a great way to breack ties, unless of cousre it’s all the points scored just by those two teams in the games they played, but I dont like them in general because a team that plays in a division with a team that only wins three games in a season has an advatage over the other.

That is what it is. You only look at the PF-PA from the games you played against the team(s) you're tied with.

That isn't an issue, since tiebreakers are only used between teams in the same division anyway. When a team is trying to cross over, they have to have a BETTER record than the 3rd-place-team in the other division - a tie goes to the 3rd-place team.

I'm not a fan at all of using penalties to break ties. This is a professional sports league, not a rec league. Penalties are dealt with in each individual game and affect the outcome as it is.

You're right when considering just two teams being tied, but #4 would come into play if there are 3 or more teams in a tie.