Breaking a tie for the playoffs (1 Viewer)

[Yenrub]

My league goes by record then total points scored as a tiebreaker. Using a decimal system there's no way in hell there's going to be a tie in total points. .1/RuRecYd and .04/.05 PaYd usually takes care of any ties (including weekly scoring ties).

The owners in your league are going to have issue with whatever method you choose because this should have been discussed and laid out BEFORE the season began. It's called league rules or a constitution...

here is how the rule is written:If 2 or more teams from different divisions are tied for a wildcard spot the following Tie-breaker will be used:

1. Head to head record amongst all teams tied

2. Total points scored

3. Head to head record amongst all playoff teams

4. Total Bench Scoring

5. Total points against (lowest to highest)

my problem is, what does that mean to you? i interpret it as i said in my OP. but i have a feeling the commish will overrule me.

You can't really ask people what they would do, and use any input on what other leagues do. Your rules are what they are. Period. And it seems pretty clear in your rules. Your league rules tie-breaking order has "head to head record amongst all teams tied" first. And you can compare records even if they don't have the same number of games played. Team A is .667, Team B is .500, and Team C is .333. A&B get in. If there isn't any verbage about numbers of games in the rules, then you shouldn't read that into the interpretation of them. And clear that rule up for next year in the off-season.

You are adding in a step comparing win%. Nowhere in the rules does it say to use win%. H2H record is not the same, and can only be used when the tied teams all played each other the same number of times. So in this case, total points must be used.I completely disagree with the rules stated, the ties within division should be settled first otherwise there is no point in having separate divisions.

So for this season, use total points. Next season, change the rules!!!

I don't see that in the rules provided to us by the OPThe rules simply state 'Head to head record amongst all teams tied'

Well the head to head record of the 3 tied teams are;

A = 2-1

B = 1-1

C = 1-2

I agree that the rules provided in the OP do not say that "can only be used when the tied teams all played each other the same number of times", but like puckalicious says it doesn't say to use win% either. All it says is "Head to head record amongst all teams tied," which leaves something up to interpretation. I agree with puckalicious here that unless there is additional clarification in the league rules, it is most reasonable to conclude that the H2H step of the league's tiebreaker procedures are indeed inconclusive and it's the most reasonable interpretation to move onto step 2 and use total points as the ultimate tiebreaker for deciding the first WC spot. So, you are doing H2H first, but it is inconclusive.Anyone not agreeing with what I just said obviously thinks that the most reasonable interpretation is to use win% and potentially screw over Team B simply b/c Team B doesn't have a 3rd game played. That's just unfair, especially if B beat A.

If B was 2-0 instead of 1-1 would you still say it’s not fair because B didn’t play a 3rd game?

 

[PosterNutBag]

My league goes by record then total points scored as a tiebreaker. Using a decimal system there's no way in hell there's going to be a tie in total points. .1/RuRecYd and .04/.05 PaYd usually takes care of any ties (including weekly scoring ties).

The owners in your league are going to have issue with whatever method you choose because this should have been discussed and laid out BEFORE the season began. It's called league rules or a constitution...

here is how the rule is written:If 2 or more teams from different divisions are tied for a wildcard spot the following Tie-breaker will be used:

1. Head to head record amongst all teams tied

2. Total points scored

3. Head to head record amongst all playoff teams

4. Total Bench Scoring

5. Total points against (lowest to highest)

my problem is, what does that mean to you? i interpret it as i said in my OP. but i have a feeling the commish will overrule me.

You can't really ask people what they would do, and use any input on what other leagues do. Your rules are what they are. Period. And it seems pretty clear in your rules. Your league rules tie-breaking order has "head to head record amongst all teams tied" first. And you can compare records even if they don't have the same number of games played. Team A is .667, Team B is .500, and Team C is .333. A&B get in. If there isn't any verbage about numbers of games in the rules, then you shouldn't read that into the interpretation of them. And clear that rule up for next year in the off-season.

You are adding in a step comparing win%. Nowhere in the rules does it say to use win%. H2H record is not the same, and can only be used when the tied teams all played each other the same number of times. So in this case, total points must be used.I completely disagree with the rules stated, the ties within division should be settled first otherwise there is no point in having separate divisions.

So for this season, use total points. Next season, change the rules!!!

I don't see that in the rules provided to us by the OPThe rules simply state 'Head to head record amongst all teams tied'

Well the head to head record of the 3 tied teams are;

A = 2-1

B = 1-1

C = 1-2

I agree that the rules provided in the OP do not say that "can only be used when the tied teams all played each other the same number of times", but like puckalicious says it doesn't say to use win% either. All it says is "Head to head record amongst all teams tied," which leaves something up to interpretation. I agree with puckalicious here that unless there is additional clarification in the league rules, it is most reasonable to conclude that the H2H step of the league's tiebreaker procedures are indeed inconclusive and it's the most reasonable interpretation to move onto step 2 and use total points as the ultimate tiebreaker for deciding the first WC spot. So, you are doing H2H first, but it is inconclusive.Anyone not agreeing with what I just said obviously thinks that the most reasonable interpretation is to use win% and potentially screw over Team B simply b/c Team B doesn't have a 3rd game played. That's just unfair, especially if B beat A.

If B was 2-0 instead of 1-1 would you still say it’s not fair because B didn’t play a 3rd game?

No. In that case (as long as B played both A & C), I would say that B wins the 3-way tiebreaker on H2H b/c B is undefeated against the other 2. If B was 2-0 but both wins were over the same team, then I would still say it is inconclusive.

 

[GregR_2]

My league goes by record then total points scored as a tiebreaker. Using a decimal system there's no way in hell there's going to be a tie in total points. .1/RuRecYd and .04/.05 PaYd usually takes care of any ties (including weekly scoring ties).

The owners in your league are going to have issue with whatever method you choose because this should have been discussed and laid out BEFORE the season began. It's called league rules or a constitution...

here is how the rule is written:If 2 or more teams from different divisions are tied for a wildcard spot the following Tie-breaker will be used:

1. Head to head record amongst all teams tied

2. Total points scored

3. Head to head record amongst all playoff teams

4. Total Bench Scoring

5. Total points against (lowest to highest)

my problem is, what does that mean to you? i interpret it as i said in my OP. but i have a feeling the commish will overrule me.

I agree with your interpretation.If it was the NFL Wildcard, they would break the tie between the division teams first. However, your rule states it is the head to head record "amongst all teams tied". Using the NFL's method of H2H only amongst teams in a division first would not be using H2H "amongst all tied teams", so I don't think the rules support the NFL's method.

So it should go as follows:

1st Wildcard: Tiebreak between teams A, B and C. A has the best record with 2-1, and gets the Wildcard.

2nd Wildcard: Tiebreak between teams B and C. You need to determine the record of these two teams vs each other in head to head. Team A is not involved in this tiebreak, so the H2H records need to be for B vs C only.

I like how you view this as a two-step process in that you decide the 2nd WC from scratch in a completely new step once the 1st WC has been decided, but tell me how you can say that A gets the 1st WC over B if, for example, B beat A. How can you hold it against B that they played one less game than the other 2 teams? I just don't see how the 1st WC doesn't get decided on Total Pts after if it determined that the H2H "amongst all tied teams" is inconclusive.

It balances out.Team B didn't get to play a game that could have been a win. At the same time Team's A and C had extra games that may have ended in a loss.

While Team B can argue he might have gone 2-1 if he DID have a third game, Team A can wage an equal argument he might have gone 2-0 if he DIDN'T have the third game, and Team C can argue equally that he might have gone 1-1 and remained in a 3-way tie if he DIDN'T have the third game.

With all that taken into account, I don't think anyone has an advantage to a degree that makes it unfair. The only time there would be a significantly lopsided advantage is where you have teams who didn't face each other at all and then you have to decide what you do if one teams goes 2-0 and another goes 3-0. That is the case in the NFL, but it isn't really a problem for us in most standard sized fantasy leagues since we play all other teams at least once.

Just to be clear, the above is why I think that resolution is still fair to all parties including Team B, since the situation is upon the OP. But I would suggest setting up my leagues to use a different tiebreak entirely like most total points for and then least total points against, to avoid the issue entirely.

There's some good arguments total points would result in the best team getting the spot more than H2H would, due to the nature of scores in fantasy games being largely indepedent of each other, compared to real sports where two teams scores are heavily dependent on the other team.

 

[PosterNutBag]

My league goes by record then total points scored as a tiebreaker. Using a decimal system there's no way in hell there's going to be a tie in total points. .1/RuRecYd and .04/.05 PaYd usually takes care of any ties (including weekly scoring ties).

The owners in your league are going to have issue with whatever method you choose because this should have been discussed and laid out BEFORE the season began. It's called league rules or a constitution...

here is how the rule is written:If 2 or more teams from different divisions are tied for a wildcard spot the following Tie-breaker will be used:

1. Head to head record amongst all teams tied

2. Total points scored

3. Head to head record amongst all playoff teams

4. Total Bench Scoring

5. Total points against (lowest to highest)

my problem is, what does that mean to you? i interpret it as i said in my OP. but i have a feeling the commish will overrule me.

I agree with your interpretation.If it was the NFL Wildcard, they would break the tie between the division teams first. However, your rule states it is the head to head record "amongst all teams tied". Using the NFL's method of H2H only amongst teams in a division first would not be using H2H "amongst all tied teams", so I don't think the rules support the NFL's method.

So it should go as follows:

1st Wildcard: Tiebreak between teams A, B and C. A has the best record with 2-1, and gets the Wildcard.

2nd Wildcard: Tiebreak between teams B and C. You need to determine the record of these two teams vs each other in head to head. Team A is not involved in this tiebreak, so the H2H records need to be for B vs C only.

I like how you view this as a two-step process in that you decide the 2nd WC from scratch in a completely new step once the 1st WC has been decided, but tell me how you can say that A gets the 1st WC over B if, for example, B beat A. How can you hold it against B that they played one less game than the other 2 teams? I just don't see how the 1st WC doesn't get decided on Total Pts after if it determined that the H2H "amongst all tied teams" is inconclusive.

It balances out.Team B didn't get to play a game that could have been a win. At the same time Team's A and C had extra games that may have ended in a loss.

While Team B can argue he might have gone 2-1 if he DID have a third game, Team A can wage an equal argument he might have gone 2-0 if he DIDN'T have the third game, and Team C can argue equally that he might have gone 1-1 and remained in a 3-way tie if he DIDN'T have the third game.

With all that taken into account, I don't think anyone has an advantage to a degree that makes it unfair. The only time there would be a significantly lopsided advantage is where you have teams who didn't face each other at all and then you have to decide what you do if one teams goes 2-0 and another goes 3-0. That is the case in the NFL, but it isn't really a problem for us in most standard sized fantasy leagues since we play all other teams at least once.

Just to be clear, the above is why I think that resolution is still fair to all parties including Team B, since the situation is upon the OP. But I would suggest setting up my leagues to use a different tiebreak entirely like most total points for and then least total points against, to avoid the issue entirely.

There's some good arguments total points would result in the best team getting the spot more than H2H would, due to the nature of scores in fantasy games being largely indepedent of each other, compared to real sports where two teams scores are heavily dependent on the other team.

I see your point, but the thing I keep coming back to and can't get past is the fact that if B beats A in their only meeting it seems ridiculous to use a H2H tiebreaker to award A the spot over B. I know that if B had not lost to C, this wouldn't be an issue but this essentially becomes a circular argument and very inconclusive in my opinion resulting in the move to the 2nd tiebreaker of using total points.

 

[fantasyplayer]

Whichever team is highest in the BCS should advance.

 

[PosterNutBag]

GregR ---> Consider the situation with the Big 12 right now. There is an argument over who should play against Missouri in the Big 12 title game, which is a huge deal since this is probably deciding who plays the winner of Florida/Alabama in the BCS title game (i.e. National Championship game).

So, we have Texas beating Oklahoma, Oklahoma blowing out Texas Tech & Texas Tech beating Texas. Let's assume that Texas Tech beat Texas for a 2nd time due to the randomness of an unbalanced schedule. You really think it is fair to give Texas Tech the spot over Oklahoma in this situation since they were 2-1, while Oklahoma was just 1-1?

 

[PosterNutBag]

Whichever team is highest in the BCS should advance.

haha ... i was composing my last example while you posted this

 

[GregR_2]

GregR ---> Consider the situation with the Big 12 right now. There is an argument over who should play against Missouri in the Big 12 title game, which is a huge deal since this is probably deciding who plays the winner of Florida/Alabama in the BCS title game (i.e. National Championship game).So, we have Texas beating Oklahoma, Oklahoma blowing out Texas Tech & Texas Tech beating Texas. Let's assume that Texas Tech beat Texas for a 2nd time due to the randomness of an unbalanced schedule. You really think it is fair to give Texas Tech the spot over Oklahoma in this situation since they were 2-1, while Oklahoma was just 1-1?

I don't think it's the best way to do it, but I don't think it's unfair if Tech ended up with the spot.Oklahoma could have locked up the spot by winning 2 games regardless of whether Texas or Tech won 2 games also. Only when Oklahoma failed to do so, are Texas or Tech put in a better position to win it.Those advantages offset each other pretty well. Exactly 100% offset? Probably not. If I had my choice I'd take Oklahoma's position of completely controlling my tiebreak destiny in only 2 games. So they probably do have a slight advantage in my eyes, but a pretty darn small one since if they lose, the advantage goes to another team. I wouldn't be overly upset if I was instead in the situation of a team playing 3 games.Though again, I wouldn't set up a head to head tiebreak like that if I was in control of things. So fair? Yeah, pretty much. As fair as some other tiebreaks that get used. Ideal? Definitely not.

 

[belljr]

My league goes by record then total points scored as a tiebreaker. Using a decimal system there's no way in hell there's going to be a tie in total points. .1/RuRecYd and .04/.05 PaYd usually takes care of any ties (including weekly scoring ties).

The owners in your league are going to have issue with whatever method you choose because this should have been discussed and laid out BEFORE the season began. It's called league rules or a constitution...

here is how the rule is written:If 2 or more teams from different divisions are tied for a wildcard spot the following Tie-breaker will be used:

1. Head to head record amongst all teams tied

2. Total points scored

3. Head to head record amongst all playoff teams

4. Total Bench Scoring

5. Total points against (lowest to highest)

my problem is, what does that mean to you? i interpret it as i said in my OP. but i have a feeling the commish will overrule me.

I agree with your interpretation.If it was the NFL Wildcard, they would break the tie between the division teams first. However, your rule states it is the head to head record "amongst all teams tied". Using the NFL's method of H2H only amongst teams in a division first would not be using H2H "amongst all tied teams", so I don't think the rules support the NFL's method.

So it should go as follows:

1st Wildcard: Tiebreak between teams A, B and C. A has the best record with 2-1, and gets the Wildcard.

2nd Wildcard: Tiebreak between teams B and C. You need to determine the record of these two teams vs each other in head to head. Team A is not involved in this tiebreak, so the H2H records need to be for B vs C only.

I like how you view this as a two-step process in that you decide the 2nd WC from scratch in a completely new step once the 1st WC has been decided, but tell me how you can say that A gets the 1st WC over B if, for example, B beat A. How can you hold it against B that they played one less game than the other 2 teams? I just don't see how the 1st WC doesn't get decided on Total Pts after if it determined that the H2H "amongst all tied teams" is inconclusive.

It balances out.Team B didn't get to play a game that could have been a win. At the same time Team's A and C had extra games that may have ended in a loss.

While Team B can argue he might have gone 2-1 if he DID have a third game, Team A can wage an equal argument he might have gone 2-0 if he DIDN'T have the third game, and Team C can argue equally that he might have gone 1-1 and remained in a 3-way tie if he DIDN'T have the third game.

With all that taken into account, I don't think anyone has an advantage to a degree that makes it unfair. The only time there would be a significantly lopsided advantage is where you have teams who didn't face each other at all and then you have to decide what you do if one teams goes 2-0 and another goes 3-0. That is the case in the NFL, but it isn't really a problem for us in most standard sized fantasy leagues since we play all other teams at least once.

Just to be clear, the above is why I think that resolution is still fair to all parties including Team B, since the situation is upon the OP. But I would suggest setting up my leagues to use a different tiebreak entirely like most total points for and then least total points against, to avoid the issue entirely.

There's some good arguments total points would result in the best team getting the spot more than H2H would, due to the nature of scores in fantasy games being largely indepedent of each other, compared to real sports where two teams scores are heavily dependent on the other team.

I see your point, but the thing I keep coming back to and can't get past is the fact that if B beats A in their only meeting it seems ridiculous to use a H2H tiebreaker to award A the spot over B. I know that if B had not lost to C, this wouldn't be an issue but this essentially becomes a circular argument and very inconclusive in my opinion resulting in the move to the 2nd tiebreaker of using total points.

Not sure if I followed your argument but that's how the NFL does it also.Always break division ties first then once one team has been determined "in" you start over

 

[King of the Wolfies]

I don't care for how the rules are worded personally, but it was the rule when the season started so it's the rule now. You can't go and change it now. Our league uses H2H then pts, but if 3 or more teams are involved then it goes to pts unless there is a sweep (team A beat both team B and C)So, going by your current rules, it's a messy H2H between 3 teams, doesn't matter who beat who.Team A 2-1 (.666)Team B 1-1 (.500)Team C 1-2 (.333)I not saying this is the right way to do tiebreakers, but under your current rules this is the fair way.

there is no debate here. the rules say h2h among the tied teams. 2-1 and 1-1 are better than 1-2.I would use all play record for the tie breaker because that more indicative of season long quality of play.

 

[PosterNutBag]

I don't care for how the rules are worded personally, but it was the rule when the season started so it's the rule now. You can't go and change it now. Our league uses H2H then pts, but if 3 or more teams are involved then it goes to pts unless there is a sweep (team A beat both team B and C)So, going by your current rules, it's a messy H2H between 3 teams, doesn't matter who beat who.Team A 2-1 (.666)Team B 1-1 (.500)Team C 1-2 (.333)I not saying this is the right way to do tiebreakers, but under your current rules this is the fair way.

there is no debate here. the rules say h2h among the tied teams. 2-1 and 1-1 are better than 1-2.

I'll say it again...if B beat A, how do you give A the tiebreaker over B just b/c they beat the same team twice? B proved it was superior to A and A proved it was superior to C and C proved it was superior to B ... that should not mean "there is no debate here." There is plenty of debate and it's clear that H2H is inconclusive in this scenario.

 

[King of the Wolfies]

I don't care for how the rules are worded personally, but it was the rule when the season started so it's the rule now. You can't go and change it now. Our league uses H2H then pts, but if 3 or more teams are involved then it goes to pts unless there is a sweep (team A beat both team B and C)So, going by your current rules, it's a messy H2H between 3 teams, doesn't matter who beat who.Team A 2-1 (.666)Team B 1-1 (.500)Team C 1-2 (.333)I not saying this is the right way to do tiebreakers, but under your current rules this is the fair way.

there is no debate here. the rules say h2h among the tied teams. 2-1 and 1-1 are better than 1-2.

I'll say it again...if B beat A, how do you give A the tiebreaker over B just b/c they beat the same team twice? B proved it was superior to A and A proved it was superior to C and C proved it was superior to B ... that should not mean "there is no debate here." There is plenty of debate and it's clear that H2H is inconclusive in this scenario.

individual h2h is meaningless as soon as there are more than 2 teams. At that point, the league gets reduced to the teams involved and the only the games amongst themselves count. I'm not saying its a good way to chose, but the rule states its the best h2h among the tied teams, so there is no debate that 2-1 and 1-1 are the best 2 records of the 3 teams involved. The rule is stupid but its the rule and it has to be followed. I was once in a league with 4 teams tied and that got even messier because the "h2h" was the 1st criteria. H2H should ONLY be used when there are 2 teams tied, otherwise you end up with these discussions of trying to warp what h2h means.

 

[The Future Champs]

My league goes by record then total points scored as a tiebreaker. Using a decimal system there's no way in hell there's going to be a tie in total points. .1/RuRecYd and .04/.05 PaYd usually takes care of any ties (including weekly scoring ties).

The owners in your league are going to have issue with whatever method you choose because this should have been discussed and laid out BEFORE the season began. It's called league rules or a constitution...

here is how the rule is written:If 2 or more teams from different divisions are tied for a wildcard spot the following Tie-breaker will be used:

1. Head to head record amongst all teams tied

2. Total points scored

3. Head to head record amongst all playoff teams

4. Total Bench Scoring

5. Total points against (lowest to highest)

my problem is, what does that mean to you? i interpret it as i said in my OP. but i have a feeling the commish will overrule me.

You can't really ask people what they would do, and use any input on what other leagues do. Your rules are what they are. Period. And it seems pretty clear in your rules. Your league rules tie-breaking order has "head to head record amongst all teams tied" first. And you can compare records even if they don't have the same number of games played. Team A is .667, Team B is .500, and Team C is .333. A&B get in. If there isn't any verbage about numbers of games in the rules, then you shouldn't read that into the interpretation of them. And clear that rule up for next year in the off-season.

You are adding in a step comparing win%. Nowhere in the rules does it say to use win%. H2H record is not the same, and can only be used when the tied teams all played each other the same number of times. So in this case, total points must be used.I completely disagree with the rules stated, the ties within division should be settled first otherwise there is no point in having separate divisions.

So for this season, use total points. Next season, change the rules!!!

I don't see that in the rules provided to us by the OPThe rules simply state 'Head to head record amongst all teams tied'

Well the head to head record of the 3 tied teams are;

A = 2-1

B = 1-1

C = 1-2

I agree that the rules provided in the OP do not say that "can only be used when the tied teams all played each other the same number of times", but like puckalicious says it doesn't say to use win% either. All it says is "Head to head record amongst all teams tied," which leaves something up to interpretation. I agree with puckalicious here that unless there is additional clarification in the league rules, it is most reasonable to conclude that the H2H step of the league's tiebreaker procedures are indeed inconclusive and it's the most reasonable interpretation to move onto step 2 and use total points as the ultimate tiebreaker for deciding the first WC spot. So, you are doing H2H first, but it is inconclusive.Anyone not agreeing with what I just said obviously thinks that the most reasonable interpretation is to use win% and potentially screw over Team B simply b/c Team B doesn't have a 3rd game played. That's just unfair, especially if B beat A.

Uhhhhhhh, my reply said A&B get in. I am not sure how that screws B over.Win% is the simplest measure of a "record". Much less convoluted that "If A beat B but not C, and B lost to C and on and on and on". The first tie-breaker is record, to eliminate that and go to total points has much more potential to screw someone over. What if A has the least number of total points? Oh, maybe we say A gets in and it is total points between B and C. Good grief. Talk about going wild with interpretations.

 

[PosterNutBag]

My league goes by record then total points scored as a tiebreaker. Using a decimal system there's no way in hell there's going to be a tie in total points. .1/RuRecYd and .04/.05 PaYd usually takes care of any ties (including weekly scoring ties).

The owners in your league are going to have issue with whatever method you choose because this should have been discussed and laid out BEFORE the season began. It's called league rules or a constitution...

here is how the rule is written:If 2 or more teams from different divisions are tied for a wildcard spot the following Tie-breaker will be used:

1. Head to head record amongst all teams tied

2. Total points scored

3. Head to head record amongst all playoff teams

4. Total Bench Scoring

5. Total points against (lowest to highest)

my problem is, what does that mean to you? i interpret it as i said in my OP. but i have a feeling the commish will overrule me.

You can't really ask people what they would do, and use any input on what other leagues do. Your rules are what they are. Period. And it seems pretty clear in your rules. Your league rules tie-breaking order has "head to head record amongst all teams tied" first. And you can compare records even if they don't have the same number of games played. Team A is .667, Team B is .500, and Team C is .333. A&B get in. If there isn't any verbage about numbers of games in the rules, then you shouldn't read that into the interpretation of them. And clear that rule up for next year in the off-season.

You are adding in a step comparing win%. Nowhere in the rules does it say to use win%. H2H record is not the same, and can only be used when the tied teams all played each other the same number of times. So in this case, total points must be used.I completely disagree with the rules stated, the ties within division should be settled first otherwise there is no point in having separate divisions.

So for this season, use total points. Next season, change the rules!!!

I don't see that in the rules provided to us by the OPThe rules simply state 'Head to head record amongst all teams tied'

Well the head to head record of the 3 tied teams are;

A = 2-1

B = 1-1

C = 1-2

I agree that the rules provided in the OP do not say that "can only be used when the tied teams all played each other the same number of times", but like puckalicious says it doesn't say to use win% either. All it says is "Head to head record amongst all teams tied," which leaves something up to interpretation. I agree with puckalicious here that unless there is additional clarification in the league rules, it is most reasonable to conclude that the H2H step of the league's tiebreaker procedures are indeed inconclusive and it's the most reasonable interpretation to move onto step 2 and use total points as the ultimate tiebreaker for deciding the first WC spot. So, you are doing H2H first, but it is inconclusive.Anyone not agreeing with what I just said obviously thinks that the most reasonable interpretation is to use win% and potentially screw over Team B simply b/c Team B doesn't have a 3rd game played. That's just unfair, especially if B beat A.

Uhhhhhhh, my reply said A&B get in. I am not sure how that screws B over.Win% is the simplest measure of a "record". Much less convoluted that "If A beat B but not C, and B lost to C and on and on and on". The first tie-breaker is record, to eliminate that and go to total points has much more potential to screw someone over. What if A has the least number of total points? Oh, maybe we say A gets in and it is total points between B and C. Good grief. Talk about going wild with interpretations.

Assuming we were talking about the 5/6 seeds, you are screwing B for the 5 seed and giving it to A since A is 2-1 even though B defeated A in their only meeting.Going wild with interpretations? Give me a break. My point is that H2H is very inconclusive in this situation since we are comparing a very small sample of game played and with different teams playing a different number of games.

 

[Gottabesweet]

Guy is mad in my league

Team A - 6-7 beat Team B twice this season, Also has a better Div record

Team B - 6-7 has 400 more points than Team B

We only use H2H to determine DIV Winners. (3) Our 3 wildcards are Record then PTS FOR because we want the highest scoring teams in the playoffs.

 

[PosterNutBag]

Guy is mad in my league Team A - 6-7 beat Team B twice this season, Also has a better Div recordTeam B - 6-7 has 400 more points than Team B We only use H2H to determine DIV Winners. (3) Our 3 wildcards are Record then PTS FOR because we want the highest scoring teams in the playoffs.

I would be mad too, but if your rules say what you say they do, that's tough luck for him. I would be willing to bet that his despite being 2-0 against that team during the season, Team B would have a better All Play record than Team A if you compared ONLY their two points totals week by week giving the team with the higher point total each week a 1-0 record (and add it up for 13 weeks so that each teams wins/losses in this All Play comparison b/w two teams totals 13 games).

 

[MCguidance]

Total Points. Head to head involves so much luck as it is - you need to reward some skill portions of this hobby.

 

[PosterNutBag]

Total Points. Head to head involves so much luck as it is - you need to reward some skill portions of this hobby.

All Play record is slightly more rewarding than Total Points.

 

[MCguidance]

Total Points. Head to head involves so much luck as it is - you need to reward some skill portions of this hobby.

All Play record is slightly more rewarding than Total Points.

True but either is a better option than common opponents.

 

[PosterNutBag]

Total Points. Head to head involves so much luck as it is - you need to reward some skill portions of this hobby.

All Play record is slightly more rewarding than Total Points.

True but either is a better option than common opponents.

Agreed. People just get carried away with the fact that the league is H2H. It sounds like you and I both agree that we need to draw the line on the H2H thing at the weekly outcome of games (i.e. simply use it for RECORD only) and then use a method that truly is representative of a team's worth to break ties.

 

[puckalicious]

My league goes by record then total points scored as a tiebreaker. Using a decimal system there's no way in hell there's going to be a tie in total points. .1/RuRecYd and .04/.05 PaYd usually takes care of any ties (including weekly scoring ties).

The owners in your league are going to have issue with whatever method you choose because this should have been discussed and laid out BEFORE the season began. It's called league rules or a constitution...

here is how the rule is written:If 2 or more teams from different divisions are tied for a wildcard spot the following Tie-breaker will be used:

1. Head to head record amongst all teams tied

2. Total points scored

3. Head to head record amongst all playoff teams

4. Total Bench Scoring

5. Total points against (lowest to highest)

my problem is, what does that mean to you? i interpret it as i said in my OP. but i have a feeling the commish will overrule me.

You can't really ask people what they would do, and use any input on what other leagues do. Your rules are what they are. Period. And it seems pretty clear in your rules. Your league rules tie-breaking order has "head to head record amongst all teams tied" first. And you can compare records even if they don't have the same number of games played. Team A is .667, Team B is .500, and Team C is .333. A&B get in. If there isn't any verbage about numbers of games in the rules, then you shouldn't read that into the interpretation of them. And clear that rule up for next year in the off-season.

You are adding in a step comparing win%. Nowhere in the rules does it say to use win%. H2H record is not the same, and can only be used when the tied teams all played each other the same number of times. So in this case, total points must be used.I completely disagree with the rules stated, the ties within division should be settled first otherwise there is no point in having separate divisions.

So for this season, use total points. Next season, change the rules!!!

I don't see that in the rules provided to us by the OPThe rules simply state 'Head to head record amongst all teams tied'

Well the head to head record of the 3 tied teams are;

A = 2-1

B = 1-1

C = 1-2

I agree that the rules provided in the OP do not say that "can only be used when the tied teams all played each other the same number of times", but like puckalicious says it doesn't say to use win% either. All it says is "Head to head record amongst all teams tied," which leaves something up to interpretation. I agree with puckalicious here that unless there is additional clarification in the league rules, it is most reasonable to conclude that the H2H step of the league's tiebreaker procedures are indeed inconclusive and it's the most reasonable interpretation to move onto step 2 and use total points as the ultimate tiebreaker for deciding the first WC spot. So, you are doing H2H first, but it is inconclusive.Anyone not agreeing with what I just said obviously thinks that the most reasonable interpretation is to use win% and potentially screw over Team B simply b/c Team B doesn't have a 3rd game played. That's just unfair, especially if B beat A.

Uhhhhhhh, my reply said A&B get in. I am not sure how that screws B over.Win% is the simplest measure of a "record". Much less convoluted that "If A beat B but not C, and B lost to C and on and on and on". The first tie-breaker is record, to eliminate that and go to total points has much more potential to screw someone over. What if A has the least number of total points? Oh, maybe we say A gets in and it is total points between B and C. Good grief. Talk about going wild with interpretations.

Once again, H2H is NOT THE SAME AS WIN%!!!! Read the NFL tiebreaking rules. Unless the OP's league has already set a precedent on how they conduct a H2H among more than 2 teams, the only proper way it can be done is if there is a sweep of one team winning against all the others, or one losing against all the others. If there is no clear H2H result (there is not in this case), then you must go to the next tiebreak step.http://www.nfl.com/standings/tiebreakingprocedures

 

[CaGamblers]

Our league uses the All-Play record to determine the 3 wild card teams - It pretty much assures that the 3 best teams after the division winnners are in the playoffs

http://www13.myfantasyleague.com/2008/home/16924

 

[StormChasers]

3 teams tied for 2 wild card spots. 2 of them are in the same division. team a was 2-1 vs. the other 2.team b was 1-1.team c was 1-2.i say team a gets in. then whoever won between team b and c. what say you?

This is one person you do not want to join a league of yours. He traded away future draft picks and money is owed per the rules...quits the league because he didn't get his way and says he won't pay the money he owes. One low life. Don't let him join one of your leagues. (He traded his 1st, 3rd and 5th round picks next year in a partial keeper league.)

 

[Chase Stuart]

The hottest team advances.

 

[PosterNutBag]

3 teams tied for 2 wild card spots. 2 of them are in the same division. team a was 2-1 vs. the other 2.team b was 1-1.team c was 1-2.i say team a gets in. then whoever won between team b and c. what say you?

This is one person you do not want to join a league of yours. He traded away future draft picks and money is owed per the rules...quits the league because he didn't get his way and says he won't pay the money he owes. One low life. Don't let him join one of your leagues. (He traded his 1st, 3rd and 5th round picks next year in a partial keeper league.)

You are saying that the Original Poster was posting this situation about himself and quit the league when he lost out? I was wondering why we never heard back from him. He must have realized this discussion was going against him.Which team was his? Who beat who among A, B, C? What were the total points among those 3 teams. Finally, what was the decision made by the league?

 

[StormChasers]

3 teams tied for 2 wild card spots. 2 of them are in the same division. team a was 2-1 vs. the other 2.team b was 1-1.team c was 1-2.i say team a gets in. then whoever won between team b and c. what say you?

This is one person you do not want to join a league of yours. He traded away future draft picks and money is owed per the rules...quits the league because he didn't get his way and says he won't pay the money he owes. One low life. Don't let him join one of your leagues. (He traded his 1st, 3rd and 5th round picks next year in a partial keeper league.)

You are saying that the Original Poster was posting this situation about himself and quit the league when he lost out? I was wondering why we never heard back from him. He must have realized this discussion was going against him.Which team was his? Who beat who among A, B, C? What were the total points among those 3 teams. Finally, what was the decision made by the league?

You all had some good ideas as to how to change the language of this rule and alternate ways to approach this. The league will be voting on this for next year. As for this year...we followed the rule as it is stated:"1. Head to head record amongst all teams tied"Since it doesn't stipulate recalculating after the 1st team is in...we used the records for all of the tied teams...A & B go into the playoffs with C looking in. This dirtbag was the C team. Totals points were - Team A - 1294.76, Team B - 1505.20 and Team C - 1508.86

 

[rockalum]

Actually I quit the league because, as I stated on the other board, I gave myself 2 years to see if I could come to like head-to-head competition. I don't. I therefore decided it was best to leave now rather than put myself through another aggravating season of this.

 

[PosterNutBag]

3 teams tied for 2 wild card spots. 2 of them are in the same division. team a was 2-1 vs. the other 2.team b was 1-1.team c was 1-2.i say team a gets in. then whoever won between team b and c. what say you?

This is one person you do not want to join a league of yours. He traded away future draft picks and money is owed per the rules...quits the league because he didn't get his way and says he won't pay the money he owes. One low life. Don't let him join one of your leagues. (He traded his 1st, 3rd and 5th round picks next year in a partial keeper league.)

You are saying that the Original Poster was posting this situation about himself and quit the league when he lost out? I was wondering why we never heard back from him. He must have realized this discussion was going against him.Which team was his? Who beat who among A, B, C? What were the total points among those 3 teams. Finally, what was the decision made by the league?

You all had some good ideas as to how to change the language of this rule and alternate ways to approach this. The league will be voting on this for next year. As for this year...we followed the rule as it is stated:"1. Head to head record amongst all teams tied"Since it doesn't stipulate recalculating after the 1st team is in...we used the records for all of the tied teams...A & B go into the playoffs with C looking in. This dirtbag was the C team. Totals points were - Team A - 1294.76, Team B - 1505.20 and Team C - 1508.86

I can see how he would be upset, but quitting the league over it is ridiculous.I don't agree with your interpretation of the rules, though, since C has a very legit gripe that he either beat B and proved he is superior to B ... OR ... that he split with A and has more total points so he should be superior to A. This is precisely why you should rule that H2H (the first tiebreaker is inconclusive) and you should move on to the 2nd tiebreaker to decide things.So who did C lose to?

 

[PosterNutBag]

Actually I quit the league because, as I stated on the other board, I gave myself 2 years to see if I could come to like head-to-head competition. I don't. I therefore decided it was best to leave now rather than put myself through another aggravating season of this.

It sounds like you should at least pay the fees for trading away the future picks (assuming it is in the league rules), unless, of course, you are a deadbeat.

 

[GregR_2]

3 teams tied for 2 wild card spots. 2 of them are in the same division.

team a was 2-1 vs. the other 2.

team b was 1-1.

team c was 1-2.

i say team a gets in. then whoever won between team b and c.

what say you?

This is one person you do not want to join a league of yours. He traded away future draft picks and money is owed per the rules...quits the league because he didn't get his way and says he won't pay the money he owes. One low life. Don't let him join one of your leagues. (He traded his 1st, 3rd and 5th round picks next year in a partial keeper league.)

You are saying that the Original Poster was posting this situation about himself and quit the league when he lost out? I was wondering why we never heard back from him. He must have realized this discussion was going against him.Which team was his? Who beat who among A, B, C? What were the total points among those 3 teams. Finally, what was the decision made by the league?

You all had some good ideas as to how to change the language of this rule and alternate ways to approach this. The league will be voting on this for next year. As for this year...we followed the rule as it is stated:"1. Head to head record amongst all teams tied"

Since it doesn't stipulate recalculating after the 1st team is in...we used the records for all of the tied teams...A & B go into the playoffs with C looking in. This dirtbag was the C team.

Totals points were - Team A - 1294.76, Team B - 1505.20 and Team C - 1508.86

So the tiebreak for the last playoff spot between B and C, was won by B because he beat C with a 1-0 head to head record?

 

[rockalum]

3 teams tied for 2 wild card spots. 2 of them are in the same division.

team a was 2-1 vs. the other 2.

team b was 1-1.

team c was 1-2.

i say team a gets in. then whoever won between team b and c.

what say you?

This is one person you do not want to join a league of yours. He traded away future draft picks and money is owed per the rules...quits the league because he didn't get his way and says he won't pay the money he owes. One low life. Don't let him join one of your leagues. (He traded his 1st, 3rd and 5th round picks next year in a partial keeper league.)

You are saying that the Original Poster was posting this situation about himself and quit the league when he lost out? I was wondering why we never heard back from him. He must have realized this discussion was going against him.Which team was his? Who beat who among A, B, C? What were the total points among those 3 teams. Finally, what was the decision made by the league?

You all had some good ideas as to how to change the language of this rule and alternate ways to approach this. The league will be voting on this for next year. As for this year...we followed the rule as it is stated:"1. Head to head record amongst all teams tied"

Since it doesn't stipulate recalculating after the 1st team is in...we used the records for all of the tied teams...A & B go into the playoffs with C looking in. This dirtbag was the C team.

Totals points were - Team A - 1294.76, Team B - 1505.20 and Team C - 1508.86

So the tiebreak for the last playoff spot between B and C, was won by B because he beat C with a 1-0 head to head record?

no. a was 2-0 vs. cb was 1-0 vs. a

c was 1-0 vs. b

 

[StormChasers]

Actually I quit the league because, as I stated on the other board, I gave myself 2 years to see if I could come to like head-to-head competition. I don't. I therefore decided it was best to leave now rather than put myself through another aggravating season of this.

It sounds like you should at least pay the fees for trading away the future picks (assuming it is in the league rules), unless, of course, you are a deadbeat.

Not only is he a deadbeat he now dropped the good players on his team.Trade rules below:

TRADES

There will be no additional fees for making trades. All trades must be made using the league Website at MFL.com (http://football4.myfantasyleague.com/2007/home/56212) by Sunday at 12:00pm. each week. Trades made and accepted on MFL will be final. The trading deadline is week 11 of the PAFFL season.

It is the owners who are involved in the trade's responsibility to make sure the trade proposed and accepted on MFL.com is the trade you want. Please do so prior to the deal being accepted as once accepted the trade is final. Once a trade is final, any owner who wishes to question the trade has 24 hours from the time posted on MFL.com to take the trade to a league vote. The trade will not fully execute until this 24 hour period passes. If a trade is questioned, each owner participating in the trade MUST post their reasons behind the trade at the Huddle.com League board. All Owners (except those who participated in the trade) will then have 48 hours to Vote. Majority vote (6) will be needed to overturn a trade. If Majority vote has not been reached with-in the 48 hour period then a trade is approved. This means that even if owners did not vote the trade will be approved.

A trade may include a future year draft pick but only 1 year in advance. MFL.com does support trading future picks. If an owner trades a future year draft pick then that owner will be required to pay a portion of the following years’ league fees. The amount is noted below:

1st - 4th round pick - $ 50

5th - 9th round pick - $ 35

10th - 15th round pick - $ 15

15th - 18th round pick - $ 0

This money will be applied towards the following years league fees and is not refundable. Should an owner who traded their 1st round pick next year wish to leave the league, then that owner will not get a refund and the $ 50 will be applied to the league fees of the owner taking over the vacant team.

When trading a draft pick during the season, an owner has 60 days to pay the fees to the commissioner from the finish of the Fantasy Football season. If the fees are not received the lineup for that team will remain frozen until the fees are received (no trading allowed until payment is made). Any winnings will be retained for payment of traded draft picks (if applicable).

 

[PosterNutBag]

3 teams tied for 2 wild card spots. 2 of them are in the same division.

team a was 2-1 vs. the other 2.

team b was 1-1.

team c was 1-2.

i say team a gets in. then whoever won between team b and c.

what say you?

This is one person you do not want to join a league of yours. He traded away future draft picks and money is owed per the rules...quits the league because he didn't get his way and says he won't pay the money he owes. One low life. Don't let him join one of your leagues. (He traded his 1st, 3rd and 5th round picks next year in a partial keeper league.)

You are saying that the Original Poster was posting this situation about himself and quit the league when he lost out? I was wondering why we never heard back from him. He must have realized this discussion was going against him.Which team was his? Who beat who among A, B, C? What were the total points among those 3 teams. Finally, what was the decision made by the league?

You all had some good ideas as to how to change the language of this rule and alternate ways to approach this. The league will be voting on this for next year. As for this year...we followed the rule as it is stated:"1. Head to head record amongst all teams tied"

Since it doesn't stipulate recalculating after the 1st team is in...we used the records for all of the tied teams...A & B go into the playoffs with C looking in. This dirtbag was the C team.

Totals points were - Team A - 1294.76, Team B - 1505.20 and Team C - 1508.86

So the tiebreak for the last playoff spot between B and C, was won by B because he beat C with a 1-0 head to head record?

This is where the commish messed up the biggest IMO. You just saw in a post after this that C only lost to one team in the tiebreaker (A), but lost twice to them...but that C beat B.From the rules I saw written, the commish basically made two assumptions that it sounds most people would not have made. The first one is that he viewed "1. Head to head record amongst all teams tied" as really meaning "best winning percentage regardless of how many games each team played and who beat who head to head." I can see it as sort of reasonable that the commish made this interpretation, but it seems like he should have ruled that H2H was inconclusive since there is no way he can defend allowing B to get the playoff berth over C since C is 1-0 over B. The fact that A beat C a 2nd time should be meaningless when it comes to comparing B & C, yet the commish decided it meant everything.

The 2nd assumption made since the rules we saw didn't specify either way was that the commish decided to decide both wild card spots in one step instead of doing it one seeded spot at a time like all professional leagues would do. He should have decided the first wild card spot as a 3-way tiebreaker and then done a 2-way tiebreaker for the last spot b/w B & C.

So there were two things here that were not explicitly written out in the rules that the commish used his judgement on and messed up big time IMO. Seriously, how can you let B in over C with C beating B in their only meeting and having more points than B?

While rockalum's actions were childish and have sent a potent stench across the league, there is no question that the commish needs a lesson in fairness as it appears he was a bit biased against Team C here. He may not have intended his decision to appear as if it were biased, but there is no way you can you let B in over C with C beating B in their only meeting and having more points than B just b/c A proved a 2nd time they were better than C. That's just silly.

 

[PosterNutBag]

Actually I quit the league because, as I stated on the other board, I gave myself 2 years to see if I could come to like head-to-head competition. I don't. I therefore decided it was best to leave now rather than put myself through another aggravating season of this.

It sounds like you should at least pay the fees for trading away the future picks (assuming it is in the league rules), unless, of course, you are a deadbeat.

Not only is he a deadbeat he now dropped the good players on his team.Trade rules below:

TRADES

There will be no additional fees for making trades. All trades must be made using the league Website at MFL.com (http://football4.myfantasyleague.com/2007/home/56212) by Sunday at 12:00pm. each week. Trades made and accepted on MFL will be final. The trading deadline is week 11 of the PAFFL season.

It is the owners who are involved in the trade's responsibility to make sure the trade proposed and accepted on MFL.com is the trade you want. Please do so prior to the deal being accepted as once accepted the trade is final. Once a trade is final, any owner who wishes to question the trade has 24 hours from the time posted on MFL.com to take the trade to a league vote. The trade will not fully execute until this 24 hour period passes. If a trade is questioned, each owner participating in the trade MUST post their reasons behind the trade at the Huddle.com League board. All Owners (except those who participated in the trade) will then have 48 hours to Vote. Majority vote (6) will be needed to overturn a trade. If Majority vote has not been reached with-in the 48 hour period then a trade is approved. This means that even if owners did not vote the trade will be approved.

A trade may include a future year draft pick but only 1 year in advance. MFL.com does support trading future picks. If an owner trades a future year draft pick then that owner will be required to pay a portion of the following years’ league fees. The amount is noted below:

1st - 4th round pick - $ 50

5th - 9th round pick - $ 35

10th - 15th round pick - $ 15

15th - 18th round pick - $ 0

This money will be applied towards the following years league fees and is not refundable. Should an owner who traded their 1st round pick next year wish to leave the league, then that owner will not get a refund and the $ 50 will be applied to the league fees of the owner taking over the vacant team.

When trading a draft pick during the season, an owner has 60 days to pay the fees to the commissioner from the finish of the Fantasy Football season. If the fees are not received the lineup for that team will remain frozen until the fees are received (no trading allowed until payment is made). Any winnings will be retained for payment of traded draft picks (if applicable).

It sounds like he screwed you guys, which regardless of how the commish messed up with the tiebreakers is still a punk thing to do.

 

[renesauz]

It's what happens when you have crappy rules poorly written.

Horrible, horrible job by the commish. I would quit the league too, even if I wasn't involved. Good commisioners are NOT as common as one would hope.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I think the way the NFL handles head-to-head is the best way, in that it only applies if there is a head-to-head sweep, IE one team beat all the other teams they were tied with in head to head play. Otherwise, it moves on to the next tiebreaker.However, in this case it is CLEARLY defined that head to head record is what is taken into account, so team A at 2-1 clearly makes the playoffs, per the rules.

It's what happens when you have crappy rules poorly written. Horrible, horrible job by the commish. I would quit the league too, even if I wasn't involved. Good commisioners are NOT as common as one would hope.

A commissioner has a lot of responsibility thrown upon him when setting up a league. There are a bajillion rules and possible stipulations to consider in dynasty leagues, he can't possibly get everything perfect on the first try. It looks like this rule was clearly stated out in the open for everyone to see, and if people didn't like it they should have brought it up BEFORE it became an issue. It looks to me like the commish, who has posted in this thread, is handling the situation perfectly, as they will be voting on a rule change this offseason.This thread basically amounts to a total deadbeat (rockalum) whining about missing out on the playoffs due to a rule that was in place for two years and that he did not object to until it affected him in a negative way. He sounds like the kind of owner who, if he were team A in this scenario, would probably be here championing the rule as the perfect way to handle it.Good people are not as common as one would hope.

 

[Topes]

3 teams tied for 2 wild card spots. 2 of them are in the same division. team a was 2-1 vs. the other 2.team b was 1-1.team c was 1-2.i say team a gets in. then whoever won between team b and c. what say you?

I say that the team that gets in is the one which is awarded the spot after proper application of your league rules regarding breaking such tiebreakers.

 

[PosterNutBag]

However, in this case it is CLEARLY defined that head to head record is what is taken into account, so team A at 2-1 clearly makes the playoffs, per the rules.

I disagree. H2H is by definition b/w 2 teams. The vague way the league rule was written could have had it interpreted as "best winning %" (which is what you are saying) or a true H2H comparison among the 3 teams involved, which is what most of us are saying is best.In this situation we had the following:A undefeated against CB undefeated against AC undefeated against BIt is totally circular and inconclusive. Clouding the judgment of some, though, is the fact that A proved it was superior to C a 2nd time.The commish should have seen this and moved onto the 2nd tiebreaker in deciding the 3-way tie since deciding it based on "best winning %" will leave one of the 3 teams saying "hey, i was undefeated against that team and this tiebreaker is based on head to head results."

 

[PosterNutBag]

This thread basically amounts to a total deadbeat (rockalum) whining about missing out on the playoffs due to a rule that was in place for two years and that he did not object to until it affected him in a negative way. He sounds like the kind of owner who, if he were team A in this scenario, would probably be here championing the rule as the perfect way to handle it.

While some of what you say it true, you can't blame rockalum for not knowing how the commish would interpret the tiebreaker rules since there were TWO interpretations made (both going against rockalum) that he could not have reasonably foreseen.So this thread is about rockalum's whining as much as it is about the commish botching the interpretation of the tiebreaker rules.

 

[Topes]

here is how the rule is written:If 2 or more teams from different divisions are tied for a wildcard spot the following Tie-breaker will be used:

It's not clear whether 3 teams from two divisions meets the above scenario.In NFL tie-breakers, all division ties are settled first, and then ties between divisions. Many fantasy leagues take a similar tack.Are the three teams from three different divisions?

Settle the tie w/i the division first, then that team that remains matches up in total points vs the out-of-division team. Pretty straight forward and the one that makes the most sense, imo, if you have divisions.

if you do that, aren't you giving the two teams in the same division 2 ways to make the playoffs and the other team only 1? does that seem fair?

Fairness is not your goal here. Applying your league rules properly is your goal.

 

[Topes]

you only break division ties first if a division title is involved.if multiple teams are involved in a wild card tie, it makes no difference that teams are from the same division.

I don't see that in his league rules.

 

[PosterNutBag]

you only break division ties first if a division title is involved.if multiple teams are involved in a wild card tie, it makes no difference that teams are from the same division.

I don't see that in his league rules.

It's not, but that is how the NFL handles it.

 

[Topes]

If the 'fairness crowd' were allowed to run fantasy football, we'd all be in points leagues.

 

[Topes]

you only break division ties first if a division title is involved.

if multiple teams are involved in a wild card tie, it makes no difference that teams are from the same division.

I don't see that in his league rules.

It's not, but that is how the NFL handles it.

Incorrect.If the tied clubs are from the same divisions, apply division tie-breaker.

NFL only allows one team from each division into a wild-card tie decision.

 

[PosterNutBag]

If the 'fairness crowd' were allowed to run fantasy football, we'd all be in points leagues.

So what is your opinion on how the commish should have applied the tiebreakers? Which teams should have gotten in and why?

 

[PosterNutBag]

you only break division ties first if a division title is involved.

if multiple teams are involved in a wild card tie, it makes no difference that teams are from the same division.

I don't see that in his league rules.

It's not, but that is how the NFL handles it.

Incorrect.If the tied clubs are from the same divisions, apply division tie-breaker.

NFL only allows one team from each division into a wild-card tie decision.

My bad ... i read the post too fast and thought that is what it was saying. I agree.

 

[Topes]

3 teams tied for 2 wild card spots. 2 of them are in the same division.

team a was 2-1 vs. the other 2.

team b was 1-1.

team c was 1-2.

i say team a gets in. then whoever won between team b and c.

what say you?

This is one person you do not want to join a league of yours. He traded away future draft picks and money is owed per the rules...quits the league because he didn't get his way and says he won't pay the money he owes. One low life. Don't let him join one of your leagues. (He traded his 1st, 3rd and 5th round picks next year in a partial keeper league.)

You are saying that the Original Poster was posting this situation about himself and quit the league when he lost out? I was wondering why we never heard back from him. He must have realized this discussion was going against him.Which team was his? Who beat who among A, B, C? What were the total points among those 3 teams. Finally, what was the decision made by the league?

You all had some good ideas as to how to change the language of this rule and alternate ways to approach this. The league will be voting on this for next year. As for this year...we followed the rule as it is stated:"1. Head to head record amongst all teams tied"

Since it doesn't stipulate recalculating after the 1st team is in...we used the records for all of the tied teams...A & B go into the playoffs with C looking in. This dirtbag was the C team.

Totals points were - Team A - 1294.76, Team B - 1505.20 and Team C - 1508.86

So the tiebreak for the last playoff spot between B and C, was won by B because he beat C with a 1-0 head to head record?

This is where the commish messed up the biggest IMO. You just saw in a post after this that C only lost to one team in the tiebreaker (A), but lost twice to them...but that C beat B.From the rules I saw written, the commish basically made two assumptions that it sounds most people would not have made. The first one is that he viewed "1. Head to head record amongst all teams tied" as really meaning "best winning percentage regardless of how many games each team played and who beat who head to head." I can see it as sort of reasonable that the commish made this interpretation, but it seems like he should have ruled that H2H was inconclusive since there is no way he can defend allowing B to get the playoff berth over C since C is 1-0 over B. The fact that A beat C a 2nd time should be meaningless when it comes to comparing B & C, yet the commish decided it meant everything.

The 2nd assumption made since the rules we saw didn't specify either way was that the commish decided to decide both wild card spots in one step instead of doing it one seeded spot at a time like all professional leagues would do. He should have decided the first wild card spot as a 3-way tiebreaker and then done a 2-way tiebreaker for the last spot b/w B & C.

So there were two things here that were not explicitly written out in the rules that the commish used his judgement on and messed up big time IMO. Seriously, how can you let B in over C with C beating B in their only meeting and having more points than B?

While rockalum's actions were childish and have sent a potent stench across the league, there is no question that the commish needs a lesson in fairness as it appears he was a bit biased against Team C here. He may not have intended his decision to appear as if it were biased, but there is no way you can you let B in over C with C beating B in their only meeting and having more points than B just b/c A proved a 2nd time they were better than C. That's just silly.

Very very well said.The second assumption mentioned is the first one that came to my mind. The NFL rules state that the NFL uses tiebreakers to first eliminate all but one team in each division and then aware a wild card spot to one team. After that process is complete (resulting in the awarding of one wild card slot) the process is started from scratch. Many (most?) fantasy leagues realize that this ordered application of tie-breakers is necessary to avoid the conundrum this league has found itself in. Awarding two slots on one step is problematic.

 

[renesauz]

I think the way the NFL handles head-to-head is the best way, in that it only applies if there is a head-to-head sweep, IE one team beat all the other teams they were tied with in head to head play. Otherwise, it moves on to the next tiebreaker.However, in this case it is CLEARLY defined that head to head record is what is taken into account, so team A at 2-1 clearly makes the playoffs, per the rules.

It's what happens when you have crappy rules poorly written. Horrible, horrible job by the commish. I would quit the league too, even if I wasn't involved. Good commisioners are NOT as common as one would hope.

A commissioner has a lot of responsibility thrown upon him when setting up a league. There are a bajillion rules and possible stipulations to consider in dynasty leagues, he can't possibly get everything perfect on the first try. It looks like this rule was clearly stated out in the open for everyone to see, and if people didn't like it they should have brought it up BEFORE it became an issue. It looks to me like the commish, who has posted in this thread, is handling the situation perfectly, as they will be voting on a rule change this offseason.This thread basically amounts to a total deadbeat (rockalum) whining about missing out on the playoffs due to a rule that was in place for two years and that he did not object to until it affected him in a negative way. He sounds like the kind of owner who, if he were team A in this scenario, would probably be here championing the rule as the perfect way to handle it.Good people are not as common as one would hope.

I have no problem with ruling team A in based on H2H. I don't like it, but it's a fair, unbiased ruling. To then rule team B in ahead of C, is not a fair or unbiased ruling. Team C has a potent, legitimate gripe. It isn't his fault he had to play team A twice while team B only had to go once. He beat team B H2H. MOST tiebreaker procedures in MOST leagues stipulate you start over. Since this procedure was so poorly written, and had no clear answer, the only logical and fair resolution would be to proceed as MOST leagues would. I can't see the justification for B ahead of C.And while you're correct in that commissioners can't forsee and write rules for every scenario...this is a common and obvious scenario which should have been clear. A forgiveable offense. But when the rules are unclear, AND the commish makes a ruling which goes against the common interpretation....yeah, I'd be pissed too. Bad job.Dropping his best players out of spite? Bad job...bad form. You may be right about rockalum...he might champion the ruling if he benefited. Doesn't necesarily make him wrong now.

 

[renesauz]

FWIW, in the given scenario:

I believe that the H2H is unclear at least partly because of an unbalanced schedule. Although I would disagree with any ruling based on record here, I would understand a ruling that A is in based on H2H record. I would have moved on, and awarded C in based on points.

This commish decided NOT to make any additional steps and also awarded B in based on H2H, although he lost to the only other team still in contention for the slot. To me, this is where he really messed up. If he insisted on H2H, then he should have started over, as MOST leagues would have, and awarded C the slot.

THE BEST Answer:

C is in on second tiebreaker based on points scored.

Then B goes in based on haveing beaten A H2H.

Acceptable answer:

A goes in based on H2H record (2 wins, higher win%, others have no more then 1)

C goes in based on H2H victory over B.

Either way, C should have been in.

 

[PosterNutBag]

FWIW, in the given scenario:I believe that the H2H is unclear at least partly because of an unbalanced schedule. Although I would disagree with any ruling based on record here, I would understand a ruling that A is in based on H2H record. I would have moved on, and awarded C in based on points.This commish decided NOT to make any additional steps and also awarded B in based on H2H, although he lost to the only other team still in contention for the slot. To me, this is where he really messed up. If he insisted on H2H, then he should have started over, as MOST leagues would have, and awarded C the slot.THE BEST Answer: C is in on second tiebreaker based on points scored.Then B goes in based on having beaten A H2H.Acceptable answer:A goes in based on H2H record (2 wins, higher win%, others have no more then 1)C goes in based on H2H victory over B.Either way, C should have been in.

Well said and I agree.I would have decided things exactly as your "BEST answer," but I also find the "Acceptable answer" as a plausible unbiased interpretation given the rules were not more clear (even though I might disagree with doing it this way, like you do).The bottom line is that Team C got screwed.