Currently our league's tie breakers are in the following order:
1) head-to-head
2) record in conference play (we're split into 2 conferences and play a conference heavy schedule)
3) total points
4)point difference in head to head meetings
I'm fine with head to head, but I've argued that total points should be next.
Is there a better way?
1) head-to-head
2) record in conference play (we're split into 2 conferences and play a conference heavy schedule)
3) total points
4)point difference in head to head meetings
I'm fine with head to head, but I've argued that total points should be next.
Is there a better way?

same here..... points THEN head to head....why should you get in based oh head to head when matchups/byes can make 2 pretty even teams a lopsided game 1 week ( and lopsided the other way if played on a different week ) Total points spreads out the variance over 13-14 weeks so total points gives a better guage for which team is actually the best. In actual football and the 2 teams actually physically PLAY each other then Hto H is the bettr guage.... but not in FF.
Great post. I was going to post something similar. I'd say it should go like this:1. Total record.2. All play record between tied teams. Could potentially add weighting to this system, like 2x or 3x weight for the actual head to head matchups that were played, but this is more fair than straight head to head, due to timing of bye weeks, injuries, etc.3. Points For.4. Points Against. Higher is better in this case, since it implies it was harder to make it.I don't see how teams could be tied through all those criteria.