4-way Tiebreak for Last Playoff spot (1 Viewer)

[Cereal Killer]

Sorry if I stole someone's handle, this is my team name for years. I co-Commish a money league in which 6 teams make the playoffs. We have a 4-way tie for 6th place, so we had to go to a tiebreaker to decide which of those 4 teams gets the final playoff slot.

Our tiebreaker goes:

1. H2H

2. Total Points Scored

Team "A" went 3-0 against the other three teams, Team "B" was 2-1, Team "C" was 1-2, and Team "D" was 0-3. However, Team "B" had the most Total Points Scored of the four tied teams.

FOX picked Team "B" for the last spot, and the explanation was that H2H was usually only used for 2 team ties and that with multiple teams "it gets complicated" (actual quote from the tech). The logic holds that for anything other than a simple 2-way tie, H2H is discarded in favor of Total Points. Our league unfortunately did not define multiple team tiebreaker rules.

The debate we are having is "if the website we chose to host the league says that Team B wins the multi-team tiebreaker, why overrule it?" The counter argument is "forget the website, if you apply the tiebreakers manually, who would get the last spot?"

I'm asking for expert opinions (wish I could post a poll)..... Team "A" (the 3-0 team) or Team "B" (the Total Points team)?

 

[Killerclown]

You with H2H that was the tiebreaker established in the league if I understand your post correctly. You don't change it to what the site says.

 

[Jersey35]

In most cases, H2H tiebreakers are only used to break two-team ties... UNLESS one of the teams has a clear sweep of all other teams in the tie.

In this case, I would say that team A wins by virtue of the sweep over each other team. I'm personally not for H2H as a first tie breaker - as it only adds to the probability of sending a poorer team to the playoffs, but my opinion doesn't matter for your league.

This one is pretty clearly Team A.

 

[Mello]

I think H2H is a poor FF tiebreaker and if it's used shouldn't be for multiple team ties. That's not something standard enough that it can be assumed in the rules though. Team A should move on.

 

[Northbound Train]

Team A swept the H2H so they get in.

 

[DepthCharts]

First off I will presume this is a money league. If a commish or co-commish isn't wise enough to understand that H2H does not work when 3 or more teams they would not be wise enough to include this and the next tiebreaker clearly in the rules. I am going to speculate that this shoe fits for the commish and/or the co-commish which then tells me they have to be instructed to the next step and be forced "follow" whom/whatever leads them. They had no clue H2H would not work with 3 or more so they really intended to do whatever the world tells them to do when it happens. The world says H2H does not work with 3 or more, therefore B wins based on the intent of the league. It's really that simple of an explanation to the league.

Edited to add - The intent of the league is for Total Points to be the next tiebreaker.

 

[Cereal Killer]

Edited to add - The intent of the league is for Total Points to be the next tiebreaker.

Wow, you just pile on unstated assumption after unstated assumption. Thanks for the feedback in any case. The "intent of the league" was for H2H to be applied first, and in the case that this did not break the tie, then to use Total Points. My post is meant to illustrate that the automated scoring within Fox Sports went to the 2nd Tiebreaker because it failed to consider a 4-way tie scenario. We (the league) did not know in advance that the software was constrained to only 2-way tie scenarios, therefore we did not construct a multiple team alternative. The question becomes: do you undo the automated seeding based on a manual reapplication of the actual game results?

 

[DepthCharts]

How else do I say nicely that H2H doesnt work with more than 2 teams, therefore all along (since you should know that) the intent was to use the next tiebreaker all along. Pretty clear to me.

ETA - way too many all alongs, lol

 

[DepthCharts]

I should add this as well....to compare one team's wins and losses to a group of 2 or more teams wins and losses is called Record vs. Like Opponents, not H2H. Again, same point, since its well known that H2H does not work with more than 2, its simple...next tiebreaker is Points For.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

Team A would have been declared the winner if it was tied with only Team B, Team C, or Team D.

Therefore, it would seem completely unfair to reward Team B simply because 2 other teams were brought into the mix.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Not that I think it's the BEST method for a 1st tiebreaker, but HTH can absolutely work with 3 or 4 (or more) way ties. Folks are just wrong about that. A 3 team tie is handled fairly easily.

If tied team A beat team B who beat team C who beat team A, it's a tie and you just move on to the next tie breaker (prob points).

If A beat B and C, and B beat C, then A is clearly the winner.

Those are really the only two possibilities with three teams.

With 4 teams it's is a little harder and you may need some additional rule definition, but it CAN work.

Each team has a 3 game mini record. Of course is a team is 3-0, they win. But If two teams are 2-1 and two teams are 1-2 (or some other combination like that), you need to start figuring out whether you want to determine an overall "winner" and then re-apply the HTH process with the remaining teams (in another "round" of tiebreaking), or if you want to take the "top two" teams from the first round of the HTH process and the "bottom two" and apply the next tiebreaker on both two team groups at that point. Either way works, but it needs to be defined.

In your situation, given that the method was undefined, I don't know what to say. It's a pickle. Both are valid ways to define a HTH tiebreaking process, and they might very well give different results.

For what it's worth, several of my leagues use the first method for HTH tiebreaking. Get a "winner" among the tied teams, then reapply the HTH rules against the new smaller group of ties until you get the whole order.

Edit: I just re-read the original post and now notice that only one of the four teams advances. In that case, if you all agreed to HTH as the primary tiebreaker, I don't see how that's NOT team A. I originally was thinking you needed a couple of teams to advance which is where the harder problem would show up.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

Team A would have been declared the winner if it was tied with only Team B, Team C, or Team D.

Therefore, it would seem completely unfair to reward Team B simply because 2 other teams were brought into the mix.

Neither is "unfair". It's just a matter of how it is (or should have been) defined.

 

[LAUNCH]

Our tiebreaker goes:1. H2HTeam "A" went 3-0 against the other three teams,

Not sure why this is a debate. Team A met the first rule and you'd only get to rule 2 if there was a tie. The total points and the "techie" at the website should not be apart of this equation.

 

[cascaa]

Sorry if I stole someone's handle, this is my team name for years. I co-Commish a money league in which 6 teams make the playoffs. We have a 4-way tie for 6th place, so we had to go to a tiebreaker to decide which of those 4 teams gets the final playoff slot.

Our tiebreaker goes:

1. H2H

2. Total Points Scored

Team "A" went 3-0 against the other three teams, Team "B" was 2-1, Team "C" was 1-2, and Team "D" was 0-3. However, Team "B" had the most Total Points Scored of the four tied teams

OVERRULE IT FORGET THE WEBSITE PER YOUR RULES!

TEAM A GETS IN!

 

[Billy Costigan Jr]

What a mess....I say let the shortest owner have the final playoff spot.

 

[wudaben]

I say as long as all four teams played each of the same teams an equal number of times you can use H2H with points as the second tie breaker. If the teams did not have the same H2H schedule I do not feel that is a valid comparison and you should go straight to total points.

My two cents....

 

[jackdubl]

How else do I say nicely that H2H doesnt work with more than 2 teams, therefore all along (since you should know that) the intent was to use the next tiebreaker all along. Pretty clear to me.

ETA - way too many all alongs, lol

The fact that you should know something but don't does not equal intent. Intent involves knowing.

I should add this as well....to compare one team's wins and losses to a group of 2 or more teams wins and losses is called Record vs. Like Opponents, not H2H. Again, same point, since its well known that H2H does not work with more than 2, its simple...next tiebreaker is Points For.

This is correct. You should go with the website, because the alternative is not H2H either. By your own rules you have to go to the second tie-break./thread.

 

[Godsbrother]

Team A beat the other three teams H2H. I don't see how it couldn't be Team A.

 

[Traders2001]

Its not a mess at all it s very clear , why even worry about it .

The tie-break rule in your league is HTH first even with more then 2 teams so it s easy , team A is in ...

You dont even need to explain your decision its clear its the rule to start with ...

And by the way HTH ( Record between the teams involved in the tie ) works well for a tie break even with more then 2 teams , we have had it in our league for the last 15 years no problem ..

Team A has a record of 3 - 0 vs the other teams in the tie so it s so obvious A is in .

What we do if a team doesnt have the edge on all his opponent then we go to most point scored during the season ..

 

[TommyGilmore]

We had a similar situation in my league at CNNsports.com and they gave playoff spots to all 4 teams.

 

[Godsbrother]

We had a similar situation in my league at CNNsports.com and they gave playoff spots to all 4 teams.

Not much of a tiebreaker system is it?