second-best common opponent, rather than the best common opponent? This is not only illogical, but clearly not in keeping with the spirit or intent of the rest of the rules/procedures.

I agree that the use of word “next” is awkward. I assume it was worded this way because the it was written initially to break a first-place tie, and not specifically for breaking a 2nd-place tie.

I can’t imagine that anyone would try to apply it in a way that values wins vs a weaker common opponent over wins vs a stronger common opponent. That makes no sense.