I am a trying to figure out how things are regarding the western standings. All 3 teams are 9-5. Let's just assume that the standings stay the same ... and BC loses again to Stamps at the end. How does this shake out?

Stamps would have beaten BC 3 times, but, have lost the series to Sask, which BC has won (2-1). Would BC take 2nd because they won the sask series, or would they take 3rd because they lost the stamps series. Im boggled.

there's a way it works.. I am trying to think.

Riders and Stamps play one more time so if the Stamps win by more than a few this weekend they win the season series and will take first in any timebreaker.

I think in the case of a 3 way tie it would be total head to head records.

That's where I'm confused, in the event of a 3 way tie. BC won the Sask series, so would they not take first? I know it's doubtful it will happen but still, I'm wondering.

The Stamps play the Riders one more time, BC also plays Calgary. Those games have a big impact on the tie-breakers. In a 3-way, it goes down to wins against each other in total.

Sask and Calgary have 3 on rule b, BC has 2.
Calgary is +95 on rule c, Sask is +12

Calgary 1st, Sask 2nd, BC 3rd

I think jm said the other day that they also look at divisional records.

My numbers were total league +/- in my earlier post. Against each other they are:

Caglary +18, BC -16, Sask -2

(Total points for minus points against for all games against other tied teams -- tiebreaker c)

Calgary 1st, Sask 2nd, BC 3rd

Winner next week (Calgary vs Sask) wins any 3-way tiebreaker with 4 wins against other tied teams (unless Edmonton makes it into the mix). It's not exactly a fair rule, because BC only has 6 games against the other tied teams and Calgary and Sask have 7, but that's the way it's worded in the rulebook.

On the other hand, hypothetically, if the Riders win @ Calgary, and Calgary wins @ BC, they both have 4 wins against the other tied clubs (assuming that BC is still there).

If they are all still tied at the end of the season, then Calgary would get 1st, unless the Riders beat the Stamps by 18 more points than Calgary beats BC.

Kicking a time-expired field goal, would have reduced that 18 to a 12.

Not sure about that. First, the rules are as clear as mud--the league needs to redo the tiebreakers, I believe.
But rule B would break a 3 way tie, which should then allow them to revert back to the head to head series between the remaining teams. If it doesn't work that way, it bloody well should! It would be a travesty if after beating Calgary 3 of 4, we ended up 2nd because the rules are stupid.
Anyway, the winner next week between Riders/Stamps likely will finish first. The loser could be either 2nd or 3rd...

if the Riders Won 3 of 4 and they're tied with Calgary, Saskatchewan would finish ahead of them!

If you look at the 3-way tie in the east for 2nd, as it is right now.

Wins vs other tied teams:
Hamilton 2-3, Toronto 3-3, Winnipeg 3-2

Point differential between tied teams:
Hamilton +25, Toronto -55, Winnipeg +30

2 games left in the season that would come into play. Toronto @ Winnipeg, Hamilton @ Winnipeg.

The tie breaker rule screws Hamilton in this one, with only 6 games instead of 7. They can't get the 4th win to take the tiebreaker and one of either Toronto/Winnipeg will end up having 4 wins (unless they tie, but then Hamilton would need to get a tie game to get into a 3-way tiebreaker).

Hypothetically, if Toronto beats Winnipeg and Hamilton beats Winnipeg, if both games are decided by 3 points or more (6 or more combined), Hamilton would win Tie-breaker c.

What a horrible way to miss the playoffs. Lose your spot in a 3-way tiebreaker because of the schedule, and then lose your 3rd place finish to the crossover.

Does anybody else think that the crossover shouldn't apply in the event of a tie-breaker situation in the other division?

It happened back in '03 I think. 3 teams were tied with 11-7 records and because of a complicated tie breaker scenario Saskatchewan crossed over to the east and lost to the Argo's. I don't think 3 teams have ever tied for 1st though.

yup three teams tied for 2nd but it BC crossed over. SSK crossed over in 2005

Ah yes, im getting my years mixed up. The riders crossed over in '02 and lost to the Argo’s, and then '03 was the 3 way 11-7 tie where BC crossed over. '05 the Riders crossed over again and lost to the Als.

I thought the tiebreaker went
Divisional games
games against opposing team
total points

[url=] ... lebook.pdf[/url]

Page 7

Standings Points (obviously)
WINS against tied clubs
Point differential against tied clubs
Point Quotient (% of points)against the other tied clubs
Record against division (specifies percentage and not # of wins)
Point differential against division
Point Quotient against division
Point differential leaguewide
Point Quotient leaguewide
Coin Toss

I posted the exact rulebook wording in an earlier post.

Given the unbalanced schedule, tiebreaker (b) is horrible as worded. It should be winning % against the tied teams, not number of wins against tied teams.

As has been pointed out, as worded, BC in the West and Ham in the East get the shaft this year given the schedule.

Winning % doesn't make it better, as then the advantage might go to the team playing one less game. It is just a flawed tiebreaker. I think E should move up. Why isn't record inside the division better ? It still means you need to have a good record against the two teams you are tied with, but no one has an advantage/disadvantage because of an imbalance in the schedule. And all the point quotient this, point quotient that stuff is bordering on nonsense. It should be all about wins versus losses when possible.

I have a question,

If there are 3 teams tied in the standings, and they are all tied after tiebreaker (a),
and then two of the teams remain tied after tiebreaker (b) but one has less wins so is dropped out of the running (i think this part is correct...), would the tiebreaking procedure revert back to tiebreaker (a) for just the two teams left involved, or would u advance to step (c) even tho one of the three tied teams has dropped out of the running at step (b)...?

the reason i ask is because I know that in the NFL tiebreaker, if there are 3 teams tied, and one team gets eliminated, it reverts back to step 1 for the two teams involved...but I dont know if the CFLs procedure is the same as this.

My guess is that those at CFL HQ are all feverishly crossing each others' fingers hoping none of this ever happens....