Tiebreaker - After the game is over... (1 Viewer)

[Nate]

I'm in a league where Team A and Team B have tied in the semi-finals. The scoring goes to a hundredth of a point and the commish neglected to put in a tiebreaker rule! Stupid, yes, and worse is that the commish is Team A! This is a face-to-face money league - all friends.

One team filled his bench spots with handcuffs for the playoff run and has a lot of zeros on his bench since there was no reason to have a high-scoring bench under the rules, and of course disagrees with using bench points as tiebreaker. One team scored much lower during the season and barely made the playoffs and disagrees with using those.

How should our commish handle this?

 

[Ghost Rider]

Higher-seeded team should get the win; think of it is as a home field advantage. But good luck getting anyone to decide on it now after the fact. Using bench points is dumb.

You could always have them play again next week, with the winner of that game then playing the other semis winner next week, too. It will suck for this week's winner to not know which team he played until the games are all over, but that is probably the fairest thing to do.

 

[UW72]

I agree with ghost rider, extend the semi finals to two games (score is result of week 15 + result of week 16) and play the champion ship game in week 17.

IMHO the fairest way to handle it.

And for next season you need to install a proper tiebreaker...

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Higher-seeded team should get the win; think of it is as a home field advantage. But good luck getting anyone to decide on it now after the fact. Using bench points is dumb. You could always have them play again next week, with the winner of that game then playing the other semis winner next week, too. It will suck for this week's winner to not know which team he played until the games are all over, but that is probably the fairest thing to do.

not fair to other guy in finals having to play two squads.fairest thing truly may be to coin flip (or for more fun random number 1-15. and face off the rosters they played vs each other.with the team that wins said coin toss playing the other guy in finals, but those two teams split 2nd play money (and third place money if there is any, they win any) NOTE: In fairness to other finalist,there has to be an "arbitrary" means of deciding who goes forward, ie they can't pick the better team (based on matchups etc) to advance.ultimately they tied, so they shouldn't have problem splitting money, and there is no other fair way to balance the non-tying finalists interest.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

I agree with ghost rider, extend the semi finals to two games (score is result of week 15 + result of week 16) and play the champion ship game in week 17.IMHO the fairest way to handle it.And for next season you need to install a proper tiebreaker...

this isn't fair to any team, as no one plans rosters for week 17. Plus many stars might see 50% or less (ie saints/colts etc)Taking the team that scored the most points (ie the "stronger" team, isn't exactly fair to opposing finalist either really)

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

Higher-seeded team should get the win; think of it is as a home field advantage.

This is what I would do. If there was $ on the line for winning this game, maybe that can be split between the two teams, but the "home" team moves on to the finals.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Higher-seeded team should get the win; think of it is as a home field advantage.

This is what I would do. If there was $ on the line for winning this game, maybe that can be split between the two teams, but the "home" team moves on to the finals.

It has to be arbitrary. or no one will accept it. There wasn't a rule in place, so crafting a new one isn't fair to any of the parties involved. You just need to divide the equity between the 2 teams, as they tied under the only rules you have.

 

[Avery]

Since you are trying to decide after the fact, anything that is based on a known entity (total points scored, bench points scored, head to head record, etc..) will be seen as favoring one team over the other since the commish will already know who will win when he picks the tie-breaker postmortem.

Only fair thing to do, in my opinion, to avoid any bias is to make it completely random or extend the playoffs another week.

 

[John Zaleski]

I agree with ghost rider, extend the semi finals to two games (score is result of week 15 + result of week 16) and play the champion ship game in week 17.IMHO the fairest way to handle it.And for next season you need to install a proper tiebreaker...

this isn't fair to any team, as no one plans rosters for week 17. Plus many stars might see 50% or less (ie saints/colts etc)Taking the team that scored the most points (ie the "stronger" team, isn't exactly fair to opposing finalist either really)

Using Week 17 isn't fair to the team that won the other semi-game as noted above.Having the other team play both teams next week isn't fair to that team also. Why should he have to play both teams? That's less chance of winning.This is a tough one as no rule is in place...... This is just an out-of-the-box suggestion..... Have the teams that tied agree to choose ONE OF THE TWO teams to advance and split the winnings for the semi's and the finals. If they can't decide, the commish flips a coin for the team that advances and they split all prizes.Next year, create a rule for this...

 

[tikitime]

Actually this just happened in my league to me. No rules are in place, and the league allows ties.

We bandied about a lot of options, but decided on this one.

Team A & Team B Tied. Team C beat team D in the other semifinal.

so team a and b play again in week 16, and the winner plays C in week 16 as well. why is it unfair to C? does it really matter who he is playing in week 16? Will it really change his strategy that much?

 

[redaddy25]

Had a tie in my league last night too... I have a clear set of rules though as this is a longtime league...

Our first is decimal points, and luckily that broke it by less than 2 yards. Our second tie-breaker is highest scoring starting player. Third is the higher seed gets the nod.

 

[Philo]

Arm wrestle. Or, snowball fight.Otherwise, coinflip or this.

so team a and b play again in week 16, and the winner plays C in week 16 as well. why is it unfair to C? does it really matter who he is playing in week 16? Will it really change his strategy that much?

 

[Kanil]

Higher-seeded team should get the win; think of it is as a home field advantage. But good luck getting anyone to decide on it now after the fact. Using bench points is dumb. You could always have them play again next week, with the winner of that game then playing the other semis winner next week, too. It will suck for this week's winner to not know which team he played until the games are all over, but that is probably the fairest thing to do.

not fair to other guy in finals having to play two squads.fairest thing truly may be to coin flip (or for more fun random number 1-15. and face off the rosters they played vs each other.with the team that wins said coin toss playing the other guy in finals, but those two teams split 2nd play money (and third place money if there is any, they win any) NOTE: In fairness to other finalist,there has to be an "arbitrary" means of deciding who goes forward, ie they can't pick the better team (based on matchups etc) to advance.ultimately they tied, so they shouldn't have problem splitting money, and there is no other fair way to balance the non-tying finalists interest.

This is smart. And probably the way it should be done.

 

[Kanil]

Actually this just happened in my league to me. No rules are in place, and the league allows ties.We bandied about a lot of options, but decided on this one.Team A & Team B Tied. Team C beat team D in the other semifinal.so team a and b play again in week 16, and the winner plays C in week 16 as well. why is it unfair to C? does it really matter who he is playing in week 16? Will it really change his strategy that much?

It's unfair because he is guaranteed to play the high scorer of those two now. What if he would have beat team A and not team B? Sucks for C.

 

[Anarchy99]

Actually this just happened in my league to me. No rules are in place, and the league allows ties.We bandied about a lot of options, but decided on this one.Team A & Team B Tied. Team C beat team D in the other semifinal.so team a and b play again in week 16, and the winner plays C in week 16 as well. why is it unfair to C? does it really matter who he is playing in week 16? Will it really change his strategy that much?

If TEAM C wants to willingly play 2 teams, I suppose if they agree to it that's their business, but they would be setting themselves for whining and complaining afterwards.Say it played out like this.TEAM A & TEAM B tied last week. TEAM C won last week.Week 16, let's guess that:TEAM A beats TEAM B 120 to 90. TEAM C scores 100. So in reality TEAM C is facing BOTH opponents because EITHER team could beat him when there should only be one opponent.I might suggest having a 3 team Super Bowl week and having a payout system as follows:Order of finish and payout:C, B, A (1st, 2nd, 3rd)C, A, B (1st, 2nd, 3rd)A, B, C (1st, 3rd, 2nd)B, A, C (1st, 3rd, 2nd)B, C, A (75% of 1st, 2nd + 25% of 1st, 3rd)A, C, B (75% of 1st, 2nd + 25% of 1st, 3rd)Basically, no matter what TEAM C should not be forced to come in 3rd in a game that should only have 2 teams. And if that team beats one team and not the other, his argument would be that he should only have had to face the team he beat. So if that team came in 2nd of the 3 teams, he should get a piece of the 1st place prize money because he beat one of the two teams.

 

[Kimber]

Since the commissioner failed to consider the tie-break, he should bow out and let the other team advance. Period.

 

[Little Joe]

Coin flip is no fun. Get some league mates together...have some good beer, etc...and then after the proper setup-- rock, scissors, paper (best out of seven) for all the marbles! That way, both guys can be actively "involved" in the tie breaking process....

 

[Kimber]

I really don't believe there are so many people who would let the commissioner come up with new rules to decide the championship.

 

[Little Joe]

Actually this just happened in my league to me. No rules are in place, and the league allows ties.We bandied about a lot of options, but decided on this one.Team A & Team B Tied. Team C beat team D in the other semifinal.so team a and b play again in week 16, and the winner plays C in week 16 as well. why is it unfair to C? does it really matter who he is playing in week 16? Will it really change his strategy that much?

No way do I agree to this if I'm team C..

 

[TxBuckeye]

Since the commissioner failed to consider the tie-break, he should bow out and let the other team advance. Period.

I actually agree with this. It's his screw up, let him "fix it" by doing the right thing.

 

[theplayer11]

it amazes me that any commish would not have a tie breaker rule in place. It just never occurred to him now that the play-offs have started that "hey, what happens if 2 teams tie".

 

[evilempire]

We went to decimal point scoring to alleviate this problem, but nearly had a tie last night. One team won by .60 and it could have been a tie had a few things gone differently. We allow ties during the regular season, but have a rule in place that bench scoring is the tiebreaker. May not be the best rule, but beats having to play in week 17.

Not sure what to do in your case ... other than to say next season a rule MUST be put in place to address this situation.

 

[cheese]

Since the commissioner failed to consider the tie-break, he should bow out and let the other team advance. Period.

I actually agree with this. It's his screw up, let him "fix it" by doing the right thing.

Yep.... commish made the mistake. He loses IMO.

 

[rick6668]

If you want to make it a 3 way game, I think the best way is to have all 3 teams set a roster. Team A and Team B have to both beat team C in order for them to win. If they both Beat C, then the highest of A or B wins with Team C placing second.

If team C wins against both or lands in the middle, he wins first place. It's not fair to have team C go up against both teams and have to beat them both.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I know you don't want to offend Donovan McNabb because he's your commissioner, but no way can you let both teams advance and have the winner play the other semifinalist. That guy just saw his odds of winning the title reduced from 50% to 33%. That's very unfair. If you really, REALLY, REALLY wanted to have some sort of play in game, I'd consider having both teams set their week 17 lineups by this Sunday morning, have your championship game play in week 16, but only let the other semifinalist play ONE of the two teams. Which one? Whoever scores more in week 17 (with those lineups fixed a full week in advance). That way, at least, the other semifinalist sitll has a 50% chance of winning his championship, and he doesn't have to beat the higher scoring team of two teams.

I don't really love that idea because it takes away from the championship game. Unless the other semifinalist beat both teams, we won't know who won for another week. I think total points scored or seed would be good tiebreakers, but don't think it's fair to implement them now. We know who those teams are already, and cries of favoritism will be screamed.

I say coin flip, or random number generator, or whatever. It has to be something totally random and not already decided the second after you figure out how to break this tie.

 

[Chase Stuart]

If you want to make it a 3 way game, I think the best way is to have all 3 teams set a roster. Team A and Team B have to both beat team C in order for them to win. If they both Beat C, then the highest of A or B wins with Team C placing second.If team C wins against both or lands in the middle, he wins first place. It's not fair to have team C go up against both teams and have to beat them both.

This is just as unfair, IMO, but going the other way. Team C now just needs to beat the lower scoring team; you've increased his odds from 50% to 67%, while lowering Team A and Team B's odds from 25% each to 17% each.

 

[T J]

I'm in a league where Team A and Team B have tied in the semi-finals. The scoring goes to a hundredth of a point and the commish neglected to put in a tiebreaker rule! Stupid, yes, and worse is that the commish is Team A! This is a face-to-face money league - all friends.One team filled his bench spots with handcuffs for the playoff run and has a lot of zeros on his bench since there was no reason to have a high-scoring bench under the rules, and of course disagrees with using bench points as tiebreaker. One team scored much lower during the season and barely made the playoffs and disagrees with using those.How should our commish handle this?

Without readin any other posts, our ultimate tiebreaker in the playoffs is higher seed advances.

 

[VaCatFan]

I'm in a league where Team A and Team B have tied in the semi-finals. The scoring goes to a hundredth of a point and the commish neglected to put in a tiebreaker rule! Stupid, yes, and worse is that the commish is Team A! This is a face-to-face money league - all friends.One team filled his bench spots with handcuffs for the playoff run and has a lot of zeros on his bench since there was no reason to have a high-scoring bench under the rules, and of course disagrees with using bench points as tiebreaker. One team scored much lower during the season and barely made the playoffs and disagrees with using those.How should our commish handle this?

Have the points extended out further to the next level (thousandths) and see where that takes you.

 

[Godsbrother]

The tie breaker needs to be settled before Week 16. Use a coin toss or have the tied owners settle it by other means (rock/paper/scizzors, arm wrestle, ping pong, beer pong, etc.)

 

[Moniker]

Flip a coin to see which team advances and have both teams split any money that is won. Seems the most fair thing for everyone involved, including whoever their opponent will be this week.

 

[NoCheese]

Flip a coin to see which team advances and have both teams split any money that is won. Seems the most fair thing for everyone involved, including whoever their opponent will be this week.

This. Perfect way to resolve the issue.

 

[Go Pack]

Higher seed advances in the case of a tie is our rule so I voted for that, but coin flip is also a decent option. Commish bowing out would be nice, but probably unlikely. Bench points should be irrelevant in my opinion.

 

[PoolShark]

Flip a coin to see which team advances and have both teams split any money that is won. Seems the most fair thing for everyone involved, including whoever their opponent will be this week.

This. Perfect way to resolve the issue.

This is the ONLY way to resolve the issue (unless the commish is willing to pull his team from the mix, since he is the one who apparantly wrote the rules & failed to include a tiebreaking procedure). This would be the stand up thing to do, though I don't know how likely it is...I can't believe how close the voting is for the several options that by using them you are not just picking a tiebreaker, you are picking a team. We already know who the higher seed is, who scored the most bench pts, who had the most regular season points. You can't implement a tiebreaker after the fact when you already know which team it favors.... that much should be clear.Commish... you blew it, suck it up! (if not, get out a coin)

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Roshambo

Commish goes second as the oversight was his.

 

[Native]

No way commish should bow out. Hes providing a thankless service to the league (probably for free) and this is how hes repaid?

 

[Utter Chaos]

None of the above.

If you don't have a tie-breaker in place ahead of time then you can't add one now.

Just about every scenario listed is unfair to one team or the other. I think the only solution at this point is to do a variation of the 3 way final. Instead of all three teams playing with a winner take all (which is unfair to team C) do it this way:

Team A plays Team C for 1/2 the prize money.

Team B plays Team C for 1/2 the prize money.

If two different teams win then you have co-champs. If you pay out for third place then do the same thing there versus team D.

edit: I just read the other posts and Anarchy99's solution appears to be similar to mine. To further explain my solution, if team C beats A but loses to B he gets 1/2 first place money PLUS 1/2 second place money. Team B would get 1/2 first place money PLUS 1/2 third place money (if he beats Team D). The only problem I see with Anarchy's solution is if A beats B who beats C then B can only get 3rd place money even though he would have won the finals vs Team C had their not been a tie.

 

[da_budman]

Flip a coin to see which team advances and have both teams split any money that is won. Seems the most fair thing for everyone involved, including whoever their opponent will be this week.

This. Perfect way to resolve the issue.

This is the ONLY way to resolve the issue (unless the commish is willing to pull his team from the mix, since he is the one who apparantly wrote the rules & failed to include a tiebreaking procedure). This would be the stand up thing to do, though I don't know how likely it is...I can't believe how close the voting is for the several options that by using them you are not just picking a tiebreaker, you are picking a team. We already know who the higher seed is, who scored the most bench pts, who had the most regular season points. You can't implement a tiebreaker after the fact when you already know which team it favors.... that much should be clear.Commish... you blew it, suck it up! (if not, get out a coin)

I agree it has to be arbitrary to be fair. If people are dead set against arbitrary and want all 3 teams involved the only thing I can think that is even remotely fair is have team C vs the average of teams A and B( with the higher score advancing) ...... and If I am team C Im not even sure I am happy about that.

 

[John Zaleski]

We went to decimal point scoring to alleviate this problem, but nearly had a tie last night. One team won by .60 and it could have been a tie had a few things gone differently. We allow ties during the regular season, but have a rule in place that bench scoring is the tiebreaker. May not be the best rule, but beats having to play in week 17.Not sure what to do in your case ... other than to say next season a rule MUST be put in place to address this situation.

Not a bad rule.... I have owners designate ONE player off their bench, and it can't be a DEF/ST, as an "OT" player. Highest scoring "OT" player team gets 3 points like kicking a OT FG. had two of them in 40 leagues last night in the semi's. If that is tied, then highest scoring player in starting lineup.

 

[Futeki]

Higher-seeded team should get the win; think of it is as a home field advantage.

This is what I would do. If there was $ on the line for winning this game, maybe that can be split between the two teams, but the "home" team moves on to the finals.

Higher seeded team moving on is what we do. It uses all of the tie-breakers already in place in the league, albeit for determining seeding.