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
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
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.
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I think it's a good practice to match the order shown at BigTen.org. It doesn't say it explicitly, but the order appears to be conference win %, conference wins, fewest conference losses (0–3 is better than 0–4), division win %, division wins, fewest division losses. Significantly, neither overall record nor poll ranking are factors in the conference ranking order (sorry Iowa). If guessing at the tiebreaker rules is WP:OR, ok, but this is still the order shown on the conference website. Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
For reference, here are the divisional tiebreaker rules according to the Big Ten conference. Technically, this only applies to determining each division champion, but the conference seems to use the same rules when listing the complete division rankings. Hoof Hearted (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
