Breaking a tie for the playoffs (1 Viewer)

[Topes]

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?

Aww, man, now I gotta put my thinking tuke on.=============================================================================

GIVEN:

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.

GIVEN:

no. a was 2-0 vs. c

b was 1-0 vs. a

c was 1-0 vs. b

GIVEN:

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)

NOT GIVEN:1) Leagues Division Tie-Breaker rules.

2) Rules for application of tie-breakers.

A) Are tie-breakers applied to include teams, one at a time?

B) Are tie-breakers used to exclude teams until one remains (and is awarded spot)?

C) Are tie-breakers applied as commissioner applied them, non-sensically awarding 2 slots in one swoop?

ASSUMED:

The rules don't actually spell out what methodology is used to apply tie-breakers.

ASSUMED:

Commish is guano loco in awarding the two slots as he did.

ASSUMED:

Absent any clear direction, am assuming league would decide to fall back on NFL tie breakers, as they are outside of league control and crafted to avoid conundrums.

ASSUMED:

Teams A & C are the two which are in the same division.

=============================================================================

A/B/C vying for two wild card spots.

http://www.nfl.com/standings/tiebreakingprocedures

TO BREAK A TIE FOR THE WILD-CARD TEAM

If it is necessary to break ties to determine the two Wild-Card clubs from each conference, the following steps will be taken.

1. If the tied clubs are from the same division, apply division tie breaker.

If, at the end of the regular season, two or more clubs in the same division finish with identical won-lost-tied percentages, the following steps will be taken until a champion is determined.

Two Clubs

1. Head-to-head (best won-lost-tied percentage in games between the clubs).

DECIDED: Team A is ahead of Team C in that division.

A versus B for first wild card spot.

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

B is 1-0 over A

Team B is awarded the first of the two available wild card seeds.

A versus C for second wild card spot.

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

A is 2-0 over C

Team A is awarded the second of the two available wild card seeds.

=============================================================================

Wow, that surprised me. Purely coincidentally, application of this fantasy league's tie-breaker rules via the NFL methodology resulted in the same result as the goofy application which awarded two seeds in one step.

While C may have the edge over B, C never directly challenges B in the rules application, as B is awarded the first wild card seed in the first application of tiebreakers, from which C is excluded based on H2H failure against A.

That's the way the NFL would apply it.

That's the way many fantasy leagues would do it, as well.

Absent any countermanding instruction for application of given tie-breakers, that's how I'd do it.

To sum, commish's application of the rules seems hamhanded, wrongheaded and arbitrary. Luckily, it achieves the proper result. Better get them rules ironed out before next year.

 

[PosterNutBag]

Topes ... in response to your last post, it seems like a stretch (i.e. arbitrary) to use the NFL tiebreakers in deciding the tie b/w division teams first. I mean the league just says "Head to head record amongst all teams tied" and then "Total Points." I think doing it the NFL way is completely out of left field given the information we were given.

I realize doing it the NFL way is a reasonable method, but in this case I don't see why you would create a rule for the league that was not present. In other words, I don't see how you can infer that the league intended to first have a tiebreaking step for division teams in a wild card tiebreaker when the league rules are silent on it (seems like if the league rules are silent on something, you should assume it doesn't apply).

 

[renesauz]

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?

Aww, man, now I gotta put my thinking tuke on.=============================================================================

GIVEN:

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.

GIVEN:

no. a was 2-0 vs. c

b was 1-0 vs. a

c was 1-0 vs. b

GIVEN:

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)

NOT GIVEN:1) Leagues Division Tie-Breaker rules.

2) Rules for application of tie-breakers.

A) Are tie-breakers applied to include teams, one at a time?

B) Are tie-breakers used to exclude teams until one remains (and is awarded spot)?

C) Are tie-breakers applied as commissioner applied them, non-sensically awarding 2 slots in one swoop?

ASSUMED:

The rules don't actually spell out what methodology is used to apply tie-breakers.

ASSUMED:

Commish is guano loco in awarding the two slots as he did.

ASSUMED:

Absent any clear direction, am assuming league would decide to fall back on NFL tie breakers, as they are outside of league control and crafted to avoid conundrums.

ASSUMED:

Teams A & C are the two which are in the same division.

=============================================================================

A/B/C vying for two wild card spots.

http://www.nfl.com/standings/tiebreakingprocedures

TO BREAK A TIE FOR THE WILD-CARD TEAM

If it is necessary to break ties to determine the two Wild-Card clubs from each conference, the following steps will be taken.

1. If the tied clubs are from the same division, apply division tie breaker.

If, at the end of the regular season, two or more clubs in the same division finish with identical won-lost-tied percentages, the following steps will be taken until a champion is determined.

Two Clubs

1. Head-to-head (best won-lost-tied percentage in games between the clubs).

DECIDED: Team A is ahead of Team C in that division.

A versus B for first wild card spot.

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

B is 1-0 over A

Team B is awarded the first of the two available wild card seeds.

A versus C for second wild card spot.

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

A is 2-0 over C

Team A is awarded the second of the two available wild card seeds.

=============================================================================

Wow, that surprised me. Purely coincidentally, application of this fantasy league's tie-breaker rules via the NFL methodology resulted in the same result as the goofy application which awarded two seeds in one step.

While C may have the edge over B, C never directly challenges B in the rules application, as B is awarded the first wild card seed in the first application of tiebreakers, from which C is excluded based on H2H failure against A.

That's the way the NFL would apply it.

That's the way many fantasy leagues would do it, as well.

Absent any countermanding instruction for application of given tie-breakers, that's how I'd do it.

To sum, commish's application of the rules seems hamhanded, wrongheaded and arbitrary. Luckily, it achieves the proper result. Better get them rules ironed out before next year.

While I'm impressed with your methodology, I'm not sure you've properly followed NFL procedure. Whether you did or not though...you RESTARTED the procedure within the framework of the rules you used once you awarded (or eleminated) a team(although I believe you misintrpreted them). Using the rules this commish had, he also should have restarted.

 

[Topes]

Topes ... in response to your last post, it seems like a stretch (i.e. arbitrary) to use the NFL tiebreakers in deciding the tie b/w division teams first. I mean the league just says "Head to head record amongst all teams tied" and then "Total Points." I think doing it the NFL way is completely out of left field given the information we were given.

But I'm not quite sure if the rules we were given are applicable to the given scenario.

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)

Do A/B/C qualify as "teams from different divisions", given that two of these teams are in the same division?Absent the entire rulebook, I had to make a couple assumptions.

Arbitrary? Guilty as charged.

A stretch to fall back on direction applied within NFL rules, absent any clear instruction to the contrary?

Maybe.

I realize doing it the NFL way is a reasonable method, but in this case I don't see why you would create a rule for the league that was not present. In other words, I don't see how you can infer that the league intended to first have a tiebreaking step for division teams in a wild card tiebreaker when the league rules are silent on it (seems like if the league rules are silent on something, you should assume it doesn't apply).

As I said, that is a matter which necessarily needed to be made clear. Given my doubts that the rules citation provided applies at all to the given scenario, I made a lot of asses oot of u and me.Bottom line, you asked how I'd do it. Without being given en opportunity to see the entire set of rules or to query the league members, that's how I'd do it.

 

[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?

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

c was 1-0 vs. b

Then the tiebreak was done wrong.Each spot gets its own tiebreak. You don't award two playoff spots based on who comes in 1st and 2nd in a tiebreak for the 1st playoff.

First wildcard tiebreak is between A, B and C, and team A wins it.

Second wildcard tiebreak is between B and C, and team C wins it.

Team C should be in the playoffs, and he has a good case to ask for his money back if the league is going to rob him like that. There's no argument with the rules given that games against Team A should be used for a tiebreak for a playoff spot he isn't in the tie for.

 

[StormChasers]

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.

That is why the rules will be defined better in the future but keep in mind the approach used this year was the same approach used 2 years ago so at the very least it was consistently interpreted the same way. Might be the wrong way but it was the same way.

 

[rockalum]

OK, so commish now admits he was wrong, but is unwilling to step up and do the right thing.

As for dropping the players, it really doesn't affect the league. I'm out of the playoffs (and in the toilet bowl, but who cares) and the waiver peroid is over, so no one could pick up any of those three players. So there was no up or down to dropping the players. Just was not going to play them since I lost with them, I figured I could lose without them.

 

[PosterNutBag]

OK, so commish now admits he was wrong, but is unwilling to step up and do the right thing.

While I agree with that your team got screwed, he does have a point in that the rules are the same as two years ago and he is enforcing them in the exact same manner (assuming he can be believed on this). If that is true, then it's pretty much like the way he enforced the tiebreaker was actually written in the rules. If this is only your 2nd season in that league, then it would appear that you were not around when this happened last time, so that is definitely the one shortcoming in my point here.The commish should rewrite the rule now for next season and get it approved by all the other owners now so that this doesn't happen again. He seems to be saying that after reading this thread, he agrees there are better ways to do things but he was just being consistent with prior years' interpretation of the tiebreaking rules.I am sorry this happened to you. I would have been more than livid, but when I joined the league I would have taken the time to carefully review the rules with the commish since I have come to expect that most leagues' rules are less than perfect.

As for dropping the players, it really doesn't affect the league. I'm out of the playoffs (and in the toilet bowl, but who cares) and the waiver peroid is over, so no one could pick up any of those three players. So there was no up or down to dropping the players. Just was not going to play them since I lost with them, I figured I could lose without them.

So, if none of these players can be picked up for the remainder of the season then I agree it is a moot point.

 

[StormChasers]

OK, so commish now admits he was wrong, but is unwilling to step up and do the right thing.As for dropping the players, it really doesn't affect the league. I'm out of the playoffs (and in the toilet bowl, but who cares) and the waiver peroid is over, so no one could pick up any of those three players. So there was no up or down to dropping the players. Just was not going to play them since I lost with them, I figured I could lose without them.

And what about the owner who takes over your team next year? Don't you think he'd possibly want them as keepers. I did step up and do the right thing. I followed the way this rule was approached 2 years ago and did the same approach to be consistent. You pointed out the rule needed to be cleaned up and I agree with you...you also posted this thread which had some good ideas on how to approach this and we will vote on this for 2009 and beyond. You, however, posted the following at our league site:

i'll be honest: i'm 50:50 on returning next year. so i'm probably not giong to trade draft picks, just in case i don't. if i get lucky enough to finish in the money, i'd like to get paid and then be able to make my decision. i have no intention of running my team into the ground if i decide to leave and i have no intention of trading away all my draft picks to try to win this year.

And are you a man of your word? you did run your team into the ground by dropping your best players to be spiteful and you trade away 3 of your top 5 draft picks for 2009 and state that you won't pay the money you owed for trading those draft picks. Who should be the stand up guy? Who is in the wrong here?

 

[StormChasers]

OK, so commish now admits he was wrong, but is unwilling to step up and do the right thing.

While I agree with that your team got screwed, he does have a point in that the rules are the same as two years ago and he is enforcing them in the exact same manner (assuming he can be believed on this). If that is true, then it's pretty much like the way he enforced the tiebreaker was actually written in the rules. If this is only your 2nd season in that league, then it would appear that you were not around when this happened last time, so that is definitely the one shortcoming in my point here.The commish should rewrite the rule now for next season and get it approved by all the other owners now so that this doesn't happen again. He seems to be saying that after reading this thread, he agrees there are better ways to do things but he was just being consistent with prior years' interpretation of the tiebreaking rules.I am sorry this happened to you. I would have been more than livid, but when I joined the league I would have taken the time to carefully review the rules with the commish since I have come to expect that most leagues' rules are less than perfect.

As for dropping the players, it really doesn't affect the league. I'm out of the playoffs (and in the toilet bowl, but who cares) and the waiver peroid is over, so no one could pick up any of those three players. So there was no up or down to dropping the players. Just was not going to play them since I lost with them, I figured I could lose without them.

So, if none of these players can be picked up for the remainder of the season then I agree it is a moot point.

Have you never played in a keeper league? Don't you think the owner who takes over this team want to have the choice of whether they want to keep Marshawn Lynch, Anquan Boldin and/or Roddy White? (those were the players dropped) Additionally, we have a playoff for the # 1 pick overall the following year. Don't you think these players would help get the # 1 pick overall next year? This owner knew what he was doing for the future of the team and screwing the new owner in multiple ways.One additional note for Rockalum...the mistake that was made is that you never read the rules. If you had you would know how important young players are to a teams future and you would understand why you paying for the draft picks you traded is fair for the next owner who now has to pay $ 100 entry and not have 3 of the 1st 5 picks next year. Do you really think he has a great shot next year? Your actions were low, spiteful and dishonorable.

 

[PosterNutBag]

OK, so commish now admits he was wrong, but is unwilling to step up and do the right thing.

While I agree with that your team got screwed, he does have a point in that the rules are the same as two years ago and he is enforcing them in the exact same manner (assuming he can be believed on this). If that is true, then it's pretty much like the way he enforced the tiebreaker was actually written in the rules. If this is only your 2nd season in that league, then it would appear that you were not around when this happened last time, so that is definitely the one shortcoming in my point here.The commish should rewrite the rule now for next season and get it approved by all the other owners now so that this doesn't happen again. He seems to be saying that after reading this thread, he agrees there are better ways to do things but he was just being consistent with prior years' interpretation of the tiebreaking rules.I am sorry this happened to you. I would have been more than livid, but when I joined the league I would have taken the time to carefully review the rules with the commish since I have come to expect that most leagues' rules are less than perfect.

As for dropping the players, it really doesn't affect the league. I'm out of the playoffs (and in the toilet bowl, but who cares) and the waiver peroid is over, so no one could pick up any of those three players. So there was no up or down to dropping the players. Just was not going to play them since I lost with them, I figured I could lose without them.

So, if none of these players can be picked up for the remainder of the season then I agree it is a moot point.

Have you never played in a keeper league? Don't you think the owner who takes over this team want to have the choice of whether they want to keep Marshawn Lynch, Anquan Boldin and/or Roddy White? (those were the players dropped) Additionally, we have a playoff for the # 1 pick overall the following year. Don't you think these players would help get the # 1 pick overall next year? This owner knew what he was doing for the future of the team and screwing the new owner in multiple ways.

huh? Just add those players back to the team then. What are you talking about? Rockalum's season is over and he already said he is not paying from what I gather. Lock him out of the website, restore his team, and fix the damage you can fix. If you can't do that then keep track of what his team should be and tell the rest of the league to not pick up those players. It's not that difficult.

 

[StormChasers]

OK, so commish now admits he was wrong, but is unwilling to step up and do the right thing.

While I agree with that your team got screwed, he does have a point in that the rules are the same as two years ago and he is enforcing them in the exact same manner (assuming he can be believed on this). If that is true, then it's pretty much like the way he enforced the tiebreaker was actually written in the rules. If this is only your 2nd season in that league, then it would appear that you were not around when this happened last time, so that is definitely the one shortcoming in my point here.The commish should rewrite the rule now for next season and get it approved by all the other owners now so that this doesn't happen again. He seems to be saying that after reading this thread, he agrees there are better ways to do things but he was just being consistent with prior years' interpretation of the tiebreaking rules.I am sorry this happened to you. I would have been more than livid, but when I joined the league I would have taken the time to carefully review the rules with the commish since I have come to expect that most leagues' rules are less than perfect.

As for dropping the players, it really doesn't affect the league. I'm out of the playoffs (and in the toilet bowl, but who cares) and the waiver peroid is over, so no one could pick up any of those three players. So there was no up or down to dropping the players. Just was not going to play them since I lost with them, I figured I could lose without them.

So, if none of these players can be picked up for the remainder of the season then I agree it is a moot point.

Have you never played in a keeper league? Don't you think the owner who takes over this team want to have the choice of whether they want to keep Marshawn Lynch, Anquan Boldin and/or Roddy White? (those were the players dropped) Additionally, we have a playoff for the # 1 pick overall the following year. Don't you think these players would help get the # 1 pick overall next year? This owner knew what he was doing for the future of the team and screwing the new owner in multiple ways.

huh? Just add those players back to the team then. What are you talking about? Rockalum's season is over and he already said he is not paying from what I gather. Lock him out of the website, restore his team, and fix the damage you can fix. If you can't do that then keep track of what his team should be and tell the rest of the league to not pick up those players. It's not that difficult.

I already did all that...I was just responding to your comment of "in none of these players can be picked up for the remainder of the season then I agree it is a moot point"

 

[rockalum]

actually it is just your opinion that the no. 1 pick is worth playing for. pick 1 and 24 vs. 6 and 19 (or so). I'd probably rather pick 6 and 19. that's just me.

and since i traded the first-round pick to get boldin i really wasn't hurting myself. i was actually helping, by making sure picks in rounds 2, 4 and 6 were as high as possible (since 1, 3 and 5 were traded).

 

[PosterNutBag]

actually it is just your opinion that the no. 1 pick is worth playing for. pick 1 and 24 vs. 6 and 19 (or so). I'd probably rather pick 6 and 19. that's just me.and since i traded the first-round pick to get boldin i really wasn't hurting myself. i was actually helping, by making sure picks in rounds 2, 4 and 6 were as high as possible (since 1, 3 and 5 were traded).

i feel for your plight and all, but this is just insult to injury ... why are you continuing this? this thread has definitely run it's course and now it's down to trading jabs b/w former league mates

 

[StormChasers]

actually it is just your opinion that the no. 1 pick is worth playing for. pick 1 and 24 vs. 6 and 19 (or so). I'd probably rather pick 6 and 19. that's just me.and since i traded the first-round pick to get boldin i really wasn't hurting myself. i was actually helping, by making sure picks in rounds 2, 4 and 6 were as high as possible (since 1, 3 and 5 were traded).

i feel for your plight and all, but this is just insult to injury ... why are you continuing this? this thread has definitely run it's course and now it's down to trading jabs b/w former league mates

Your right...I will stop...I don't want this thread deleted because I like the ideas here about changing the rule. My apologies to all.

 

[StormChasers]

PosterNutbag and others who contributed to this posting offering up ideas. I appreciate all of the input and have taken a number of suggestions offered in this thread to our rules suggestion thread for 2009 and beyond. We will clean up this language and will vote on a change.

 

[Yenrub]

I just thought of this as a possible tie breaker

Instead of total points or head to head record

How about figure out which team would have had the best record if the 3 teams played each other each every week for 13 weeks?

For example

Week 1 – A scores 100, B scores 96 and C scores 90 – Team A gets a point

Week 2 – A scores 90, B scores 96 and C scores 91 – Team B gets a point

Keep this up for 13 weeks, team with the most points gets the playoff spot

Does anyone else do this?

 

[PosterNutBag]

I just thought of this as a possible tie breakerInstead of total points or head to head record How about figure out which team would have had the best record if the 3 teams played each other each every week for 13 weeks?For exampleWeek 1 – A scores 100, B scores 96 and C scores 90 – Team A gets a pointWeek 2 – A scores 90, B scores 96 and C scores 91 – Team B gets a point Keep this up for 13 weeks, team with the most points gets the playoff spot Does anyone else do this?

I have been on a campaign to have my leagues change to this. I call it "All Play, but only considering the teams involved in the tiebreaker" since that is pretty much what it is. It seems to make the most sense to me. You pretend you had a league with just the teams involved in the tiebreaker and see who had the best record. It's better than total points since it does not overvalue good or bad weeks and rewards the team who was consistently best throughout the season.EDIT to add the following:I would keep track of their records and not award points like you are doing, so in your above example:Week 1 – A gets 2-0, B gets 1-1 & C gets 0-2 for the weekWeek 2 – A gets 0-2, B gets 2-0 & C gets 1-1 for the weekyou do that for the entire 13 week schedule and at the end, the sum of wins & losses for each team will total 26 games

 

[StormChasers]

I just thought of this as a possible tie breakerInstead of total points or head to head record How about figure out which team would have had the best record if the 3 teams played each other each every week for 13 weeks?For exampleWeek 1 – A scores 100, B scores 96 and C scores 90 – Team A gets a pointWeek 2 – A scores 90, B scores 96 and C scores 91 – Team B gets a point Keep this up for 13 weeks, team with the most points gets the playoff spot Does anyone else do this?

I have been on a campaign to have my leagues change to this. I call it "All Play, but only considering the teams involved in the tiebreaker" since that is pretty much what it is. It seems to make the most sense to me. You pretend you had a league with just the teams involved in the tiebreaker and see who had the best record. It's better than total points since it does not overvalue good or bad weeks and rewards the team who was consistently best throughout the season.EDIT to add the following:I would keep track of their records and not award points like you are doing, so in your above example:Week 1 – A gets 2-0, B gets 1-1 & C gets 0-2 for the weekWeek 2 – A gets 0-2, B gets 2-0 & C gets 1-1 for the weekyou do that for the entire 13 week schedule and at the end, the sum of wins & losses for each team will total 26 games

Very interesting. It also alleviates the issue of bye weeks as each team will be affected the same.

 

[PosterNutBag]

I just thought of this as a possible tie breakerInstead of total points or head to head record How about figure out which team would have had the best record if the 3 teams played each other each every week for 13 weeks?For exampleWeek 1 – A scores 100, B scores 96 and C scores 90 – Team A gets a pointWeek 2 – A scores 90, B scores 96 and C scores 91 – Team B gets a point Keep this up for 13 weeks, team with the most points gets the playoff spot Does anyone else do this?

I have been on a campaign to have my leagues change to this. I call it "All Play, but only considering the teams involved in the tiebreaker" since that is pretty much what it is. It seems to make the most sense to me. You pretend you had a league with just the teams involved in the tiebreaker and see who had the best record. It's better than total points since it does not overvalue good or bad weeks and rewards the team who was consistently best throughout the season.EDIT to add the following:I would keep track of their records and not award points like you are doing, so in your above example:Week 1 – A gets 2-0, B gets 1-1 & C gets 0-2 for the weekWeek 2 – A gets 0-2, B gets 2-0 & C gets 1-1 for the weekyou do that for the entire 13 week schedule and at the end, the sum of wins & losses for each team will total 26 games

Very interesting. It also alleviates the issue of bye weeks as each team will be affected the same.

I would have mentioned it sooner, except that this thread was pretty much about deciding how to interpret your current rules. It is a little technical, but it's better than total points since sometimes you could have teams just a few points away from each other and in that case total points is a little arbitrary.This way "limited All Play" approach only compares the tiebreaker teams directly to each other over the course of the entire season (without involving the rest of the league's teams) and does it in a fair and uniform way. If you lose the tiebreaker this way, there is absolutely nothing to complain about.

 

[StormChasers]

I just thought of this as a possible tie breakerInstead of total points or head to head record How about figure out which team would have had the best record if the 3 teams played each other each every week for 13 weeks?For exampleWeek 1 – A scores 100, B scores 96 and C scores 90 – Team A gets a pointWeek 2 – A scores 90, B scores 96 and C scores 91 – Team B gets a point Keep this up for 13 weeks, team with the most points gets the playoff spot Does anyone else do this?

I have been on a campaign to have my leagues change to this. I call it "All Play, but only considering the teams involved in the tiebreaker" since that is pretty much what it is. It seems to make the most sense to me. You pretend you had a league with just the teams involved in the tiebreaker and see who had the best record. It's better than total points since it does not overvalue good or bad weeks and rewards the team who was consistently best throughout the season.EDIT to add the following:I would keep track of their records and not award points like you are doing, so in your above example:Week 1 – A gets 2-0, B gets 1-1 & C gets 0-2 for the weekWeek 2 – A gets 0-2, B gets 2-0 & C gets 1-1 for the weekyou do that for the entire 13 week schedule and at the end, the sum of wins & losses for each team will total 26 games

Very interesting. It also alleviates the issue of bye weeks as each team will be affected the same.

I would have mentioned it sooner, except that this thread was pretty much about deciding how to interpret your current rules. It is a little technical, but it's better than total points since sometimes you could have teams just a few points away from each other and in that case total points is a little arbitrary.This way "limited All Play" approach only compares the tiebreaker teams directly to each other over the course of the entire season (without involving the rest of the league's teams) and does it in a fair and uniform way. If you lose the tiebreaker this way, there is absolutely nothing to complain about.

I really like this idea. I have posted a number of options on my league website and have now added this one as well. This is the approach i am going to vote for. I believe this makes it clean...easy to figure out especially because we use MFL and I believe this is by far the fairest approach (every tied team will be equal on bye weeks, every tied team will be calcualted on a 13 week season where one great or bad week won't affect total points it would just be 1 win or 1 loss.) I love this idea!

 

[CD Dragon]

i always contend that total points should be FIRST tie-breaker. there is so much luck involved in fantasy football, that total points sways the arrow more towards the skill aspect. (i.e. middle round drafting, waiver wire, prospecting)

like in some of these other threads , you may have a juggernaut of a team but due to scheduling you end up playing the top scorer for the week after the dust settles and you are sitting with the second best total for the week. It's happened numerous times to me. total points is more of a gauge for how good a team is .

i would hate to lose a playoff spot when i have the same record as another guy but have outscored his team by over 200 points for the year, and i played him once in week 7 and lost when i had Warner, Fitzgerald and M Turner on bye.

my first is

1) most points for

if still tied, then

2) most points against

my reasoning is, obviously the better team would have a smaller room for error week to week , on average, if more points were scored against him. Hence, it reflects the coaching aspect as being rewarded.

if you average 100 pts a game, it is easier to attain a better record if your opponents average 78 pts a game, as opposed to averaging 93 pts a game.

my 3rd tiebreaker would be

3) record resulting in allplay ONLY between the two teams involved.

after 13 weeks , imagine both teams played each other every week.

one team ends up 8-5 then the other is 5-8. simple !

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

bump

 

[jagbag]

I say most points.

Best answer