Template talk:2010 Big Ten Conference football standings

This template is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles

Years

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles

United States

This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles

New Divisions

The new divisions ("X" and "O") do not take into effect until 2010 so please do not split up the standings like that. Thank you. -- MonkeyWrench32 (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiebreaker

The college football project on Wikipedia orders teams by league record, then overall record, and then alphabetically. However, it would be senseless not to have the ultimate winner of the tiebreaker placed on top. However, the BCS Standings won't be final until next week (12/5). So, the teams should be listed alphabetically until the final BCS Standings come out next week. Theoretically, an Illinois win over Fresno on 12/4 could move MSU up vis-a-vis Wisconsin (for example) since Wisconsin didn't play Illinois this year and MSU did. MrArticleOne (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we know that Wisconsin won the tiebreaker, I see no reason to put them 3rd. Even if we don't break ties elsewhere in the standings, it seems highly suspect to me that we wouldn't put the team that got the automatic bid in the top spot. Thoughts? It doesn't put us in a position to need to sort out league tiebreakers on a league-by-league basis all year long if we just wait until the end of the year to do that. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]