case of ties with one or both of those other schools. After head-to-head results, the next tiebreaker is result against best common opponent. If this is KSU, we beat them, while Colorado lost to them (and in a one-loss tiebreaker vs ISU, ISU would have likely lost to them too).

If it’s a 4-way tiebreaker among 1-loss teams, KSU wins the 4-way tiebreak for 1st place, then BYU wins the 3-way tiebreak for 2nd place because we beat KSU and CU & ISU lost to them. So we go to the CCG.

If it’s a 3-way tiebreaker with KSU & ISU, we would lose the 3-way tiebreaker for 1st place, but then win the two-way tiebreaker for 2nd place against either school:

- vs KSU because we beat them head-to-head

- vs ISU because we would have the better record vs the best common opponent (KSU)

There is some confusion on CB and social media on this last scenario, because the tiebreaker language for head-to-head includes the word “next”. So some people are interpreting this to mean that the tiebreaker is against the next-worst common opponent, rather than the best common opponent. Which is illogical and clearly not consistent with the intent of the rule, or the rest of the tiebreaker rules.