... for second place where it's not clear that the teams in that tiebreaker are heavily dependent on SS ranking. (6/6)

I could easily change my site to match that, but since I don't have the SportsSource rankings anyway, I think it's less confusing to just leave it as a three-way tie broken by SS ranking. Otherwise, I'm showing a two-team tiebreaker ... (5/ )

...the SportsSource rankings step. For some reason, the MAC only selectes the top team via SS ranking and then heads back to the two-team tiebreaker for the other two teams rather than rank all of them in that step. (4/ )

I've updated my logic to match. Two important thing to note:
1. I do not have access to SportsSource rankings. My site basically just places them alphabetically.
2. In MAC scenarios 9 and 10, there is a three way tie for first place heading into ... (3/ )

The tiebreaker last year was 1. H2H (if full round robin or one team beat all the others), 2. common opponents, 3. common opponents top-down in standings, 4. opponent record, 5. SportsSource rating. They have apparently streamlined it by removing steps 3 and 4. (2/ )

I've changed my logic to match that, so now I think my results match the conference. I guess it depends on the definition of "remaining teams" in the tiebreaker procedure.

This should only impact ties involving four or more teams. (4/4)

So what I think is happening is they are not restarting the tiebreaker for the other three after ASU was selected, though it says "After one team has an advantage and is “seeded”, all remaining teams in the multiple-team tiebreaker will repeat the tie-breaking procedure." (3/ )

I thought maybe it's because I was restarting the tiebreaker steps when four got cut down to three and maybe the conference wasn't doing that, but changing that made Utah and BYU the top two, not ASU and BYU. (2/ )

Once Georgia is determined to be above Ole Miss and Alabama on Opponent Winning Percentage, the tiebreaker is then restarted between Ole Miss and Alabama even though Alabama had a higher Opponent Winning Percentage than Ole Miss. The reason is explained in FAQ #3 at the bottom of the result page.

Special thanks to the Horizon League for introducing a format so weird I had to re-code my bracket graphic generator. On the plus side, this new functionality means that conferences who have one round split across two days (MEAC, MAAC, Big Sky, etc) are now easier to read. (2/2)

I appreciate it! I hope to have 25-26 basketball up and running within the next week or so.

My interpretation is that a team being selected as #1 in the group is still eliminated from the tie. They aren't eliminated from contention, but they are technically eliminated from the tie. I do agree this is ambiguous at best in the ACC rules, though.

ACC document is here: theacc.com/documents/20...

Thanks to @beebrave.bsky.social for bringing this up.

...on exactly what happens here, but I think it's more likely that, once a team is dropped out of the tie, they are permanently dropped out. So if A, B, and C are determined to be above D, then D is permanently #4. (2/)

I've made a change to interpret it that way.

As for your second question, I think the Big 10 is the only conference that re-runs the tiebreak for the top two teams (if tied) to determine the home team after everything is set.

This is definitely a case where the ACC rules are ambiguous. The question is what "eliminate team(s) from the tie" means. The more I think about it, the more I agree with what you are saying -- the intent as worded is that a team removed from a tie is removed permanently.