Big 10 ended up with a similar scenario with Mich and Illinois unfortunately.

The first time I heard that rule, I immediately questioned it thinking "hey couldn't a team win less games and still win a title..." But I didn't spend too much time thinking about it.

It shows a lack of effort on the committee's part in thinking critically about what would really be "fair" in this scenario and who would be left out if they had to exercise this rule.

I think a simple fix would be to, of course, place a minimum on the number of games to win the crown and then, if one team had more wins and another team had a higher % they would just make them co champs.

Perhaps there is still issues with this, but it would have been better.

USC should have been 17-3. Inexcusable losses to Oregon State and Utah did us in, not a rule we all ignored when they announced it until it actually made the difference.

the Utah game is especially damning, since the team crapped the bed knowing full well they needed that W to stay in control...

That aside, it was a silly decision. Win percentage should have been the second criteria over head to head in the event it’s a 1 game difference in the standings.

Agreed PxPx...it should have been head to head first if the teams were equal in the standings, instead of win percentage. Other conferences made the same dumb mistake though apparently.