Commissioners: Now is the time to review your playoff rules (1 Viewer)

[GregR]

If you haven't already, now is the time to review with your league exactly how your playoffs work, including seedings and tiebreakers. There are a few things that crop up every year, so this is your chance to set clearly how it will be handled before game results come in. Once results come in, people will say an issue should be handled however will help their team. So do it now, before they know which side they fall on.

These are the issues that crop up every year, so make sure your rules cover them, and if not, make a ruling now before any of them are applied:

1) Make sure you have a final seeding tiebreaker that works 100% of the time, like "coin flip" or "team who had the worst playoff seeding last year".

I don't care if you use decimal scoring down to thousandths of a point, they can still end in a tie, and every year there are a couple of unlucky leagues. So make sure you have a some final say that cannot possibly end in a tie, even if utterly unlikely.

2) Make sure you have an infallible way to resolve a tied playoff game.

Again I don't care if you measure fantasy points down to thousandths or millionths of a fantasy point or if you have 16 different in-game tiebreakers. You need to end your game tiebreak with either "coin flip" or "better playoff seed" or something like that which will always resolve the matter.

3) Do you use NFL-style division elimination for multi-team ties that involve more than one team from a division, or not?

In the NFL, if there are 3 or more teams tied for a wildcard, and there are 2 or more teams in the tie from the same division... then the NFL uses division winner tiebreak to narrow it down so only 1 team from each division is left in the tiebreak, before applying the wildcard tiebreak.

Does your league do this? If so inform your league. If not and you only use the wildcard tiebreaks, inform your league so there is no room for confusion. Not every sport does it like this, and the average fan probably doesn't even realize the NFL does it this way. I don't have my leagues follow the NFL's lead on this, mainly because it caused so much confusion we just finally stated wildcard only uses wildcard tiebreakers.

4) If you use head to head, do you use it in a multi-team tie when number of games played is not the same?

Example: Three team tie. A and B have played each other twice. Each has played C once. So A and B have 3 games between tied teams, and team C has 2 games. Do you compare a 2-1 record for Team A with a 1-1 or a 2-0 record for Team C? For really large leagues who don't play every team, you could even have a 2-0 team and a 3-0 team in the same tiebreak.

If you need a suggested resolution, I would suggest that you either only count head to head when number of games played is equal for all teams.... or if you don't want to do that, go with the NFL version that it only counts if a team played all teams in the tiebreak and swept them all. So in the previous example, Team A going 3-0 (2-0 vs B and 1-0 vs C) would win the tiebreak... was would Team C going 2-0 (1-0 vs A and 1-0 vs B). But if it was 4 teams and Teams A and D never played, then head to head could not be used. Nor if they played but A lost after having swept every team other than D.

5) In multi-team tiebreaks, state explicitly whether you restart the tiebreak each time a team is eliminated from it.

In the NFL, let's say there is a 4 way tie for a wildcard. All four teams are still tied after applying the first tiebreak criteria. You get to the 2nd tiebreak criteria and one team is eliminated. In the NFL, they would restart the tiebreak with the first criteria just using the 3 remaining teams. They would not go on to the 3rd criteria.

I'd suggest this is the proper way to do a tiebreak, and if your league has not specified it either way, this is what you should adopt. But even if you don't want to do it that way, just inform your league now how it will be handled in advance of needing to do it.

6) In multi-team tiebreaks, state explicitly that coming in 2nd in a tiebreak has no impact on tiebreaks for other playoff spots.

This is a very, very common mistake for people to make. And there really is no argument here that there isn't a single right way, just people don't stop to think about it very often.

Let's say we have our 4 team tie again, but this time there are 2 wildcard spots left. You apply your criteria and get it down to 2 teams. And then you apply another criteria and determine the winner. The winner gets the first wildcard. But the "runnerup" of the tiebreak does not get the second wildcard. Coming in second in a tiebreak for the first wildcard gets you nothing.

To award the second wildcard, you start a brand new tiebreak with the 3 remaining tied teams. Depending on what criteria you use (head to head, if you apply division tiebreaks for tied division teams), this can change the outcome versus if you just said, "well you came in second so I'm sure you'll win the next tiebreak too".

Again, this one isn't as much of a "choose however you like just make it explicit". If you don't start a separate tiebreak for the 2nd wildcard, you're doing it wrong.

(Though I suppose if your league all agrees they want to do it wrong you can, just make it explicit. Heh.)

7) All regular season fantasy games are final as of <date and time>.

In essence this is, "if we find an error in a previous regular season fantasy game, we're not going to correct it once we've started the playoffs". So if you find a mistake and seedings would have been affected, tough luck. Assuming you apply stat changes that come out Wednesday night/Thursday morning, this deadline should be sometime between Thursday morning and kickoff of games Thursday night.

8) Define that a tied regular season game counts as 0.5 wins and 0.5 losses.

This is another that some people just don't understand that 6-6-2 and 7-7 are equivalent winning percentages. So explicitly state it if your league allows ties in the regular season.

Hope those are of use to people. Please post any I've forgotten.

 

[GregR]

And from our Physician, Heal Thyself department... I just realized one of my leagues doesn't have a tiebreak set in case a playoff game ends in a tie.

 

[bigbottom]

The time to do this is before the season starts.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The time to do this is before the season starts.

Of course, but given that there are surely plenty of leagues where this was not done, it's better to have them clear it up now as opposed to 2 weeks from now.Every single year, right around week 13 or 14 there are a bunch of threads in the Shark Pool from commissioners asking how they should apply their ill-conceived, poorly-worded, or even nonexistent tiebreak rules. Even at this late point in the season, a commissioner can still possibly clear things up without directly screwing a particular owner. Once the regular season ends, and you have to make an ad hoc ruling, you're effectively picking one particular team over another to get into the playoffs, which usually leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the owner who gets left out.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I love ties, they create excitement.

 

[GregR]

The time to do this is before the season starts.

While I agree, and I bump the rules you should consider having thread every year in the preseason...it's obviously too late for that if someone hasn't done it yet.The most crucial thing is doing it before the final week of the regular season is done. Do it now and most people will accept whatever you decide. Do it after teams know which method will result in them making the playoffs and which will eliminate them, and many will raise holy hell if you decide in a direction that doesn't benefit them.

 

[GregR]

The time to do this is before the season starts.

Of course, but given that there are surely plenty of leagues where this was not done, it's better to have them clear it up now as opposed to 2 weeks from now.Every single year, right around week 13 or 14 there are a bunch of threads in the Shark Pool from commissioners asking how they should apply their ill-conceived, poorly-worded, or even nonexistent tiebreak rules. Even at this late point in the season, a commissioner can still possibly clear things up without directly screwing a particular owner. Once the regular season ends, and you have to make an ad hoc ruling, you're effectively picking one particular team over another to get into the playoffs, which usually leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the owner who gets left out.

I was just debating how we can help out commissioners in this regard.I could put in each section a definite "If you are coming to this thread looking for guidance as you've already hit a problem, use X as your method". So they have an impartial result.Or, we could make a poll for each issue that commissioners could then just say, "it's an impartial poll on our exact topic, I'm using it since that's a fair result that doesn't side with any specific team"?

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

The time to do this is before the season starts.

Of course, but given that there are surely plenty of leagues where this was not done, it's better to have them clear it up now as opposed to 2 weeks from now.Every single year, right around week 13 or 14 there are a bunch of threads in the Shark Pool from commissioners asking how they should apply their ill-conceived, poorly-worded, or even nonexistent tiebreak rules. Even at this late point in the season, a commissioner can still possibly clear things up without directly screwing a particular owner. Once the regular season ends, and you have to make an ad hoc ruling, you're effectively picking one particular team over another to get into the playoffs, which usually leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the owner who gets left out.

I was just debating how we can help out commissioners in this regard.I could put in each section a definite "If you are coming to this thread looking for guidance as you've already hit a problem, use X as your method". So they have an impartial result.Or, we could make a poll for each issue that commissioners could then just say, "it's an impartial poll on our exact topic, I'm using it since that's a fair result that doesn't side with any specific team"?

The problem is that there's not necessarily a "right" or "wrong" way to break ties, really. If you don't have a clearly worded rule, an impartial poll isn't really any more credible than just making the ruling yourself, because a bunch of strangers would just be voting based what they guess the rule should have been. Informally, I think that's usually what happens, though - commish posts his quandary here, a bunch of us give our own opinions on how it should be resolved, and commish usually tends to go with the majority opinion. (I actually usually enjoy weighing in on these topics when they come up.) But if you don't already have it in your rules, I'm not sure deciding on the spot "let's use a poll of Footballguys.com posters" is any better than "let's just mimic the NFL rules" or any other mostly arbitrary decision at that point. I support your crusade to make sure all leagues have comprehensive and clear rules, because when you don't, there's usually no satisfying way out of these types of situations.

 

[Sea Duck]

5) In multi-team tiebreaks, state explicitly whether you restart the tiebreak each time a team is eliminated from it.

But first you need to determine if you break ties through elimination or not! For example, let's say you've got 3 teams tied, and the 3 team tiebreaker is "Total Points" but the 2 team tiebreaker is "Head To Head":Team A: 1-2 vs. B, 2-1 vs. C; 1600 total points

Team B: 2-1 vs. A, 2-1 vs. C; 1200 total points

Team C: 1-2 vs. A, 1-2 vs. B; 2000 total points

How do you want to break this tie? Do you want to start by eliminating the team with the lowest point total (Team B)? That would give top seed to Team A.

Or do you want to start by choosing the team with the highest point total? That would give the top seed to Team C.

 

[GregR]

5) In multi-team tiebreaks, state explicitly whether you restart the tiebreak each time a team is eliminated from it.

But first you need to determine if you break ties through elimination or not! For example, let's say you've got 3 teams tied, and the 3 team tiebreaker is "Total Points" but the 2 team tiebreaker is "Head To Head":Team A: 1-2 vs. B, 2-1 vs. C; 1600 total points

Team B: 2-1 vs. A, 2-1 vs. C; 1200 total points

Team C: 1-2 vs. A, 1-2 vs. B; 2000 total points

How do you want to break this tie? Do you want to start by eliminating the team with the lowest point total (Team B)? That would give top seed to Team A.

Or do you want to start by choosing the team with the highest point total? That would give the top seed to Team C.

This one isn't an issue. If you have 3 tied teams, and you have a 3 team tiebreak of "total points", then you look at all 3 teams total points. Only one of them has the most, so he wins the tiebreak.You never make it to a 2 team tiebreak in your example.

Now let's make it a 4 team situation, with a team D who also has 2000 points. In that case, you apply the multi-team tiebreak (assuming 3 team tiebreak means 3+ teams). The top point total is 2000 so anyone who doesn't have that is eliminated, leaving teams C and D.

Now since you are down to 2 teams and you have a different tiebreak to use for 2 teams, you apply it, and it would come down to Head to Head games between teams C and D only.

The bolded part is why it's important you restart the tiebreak again once teams are eliminated from the tiebreak. You no longer count A or B games if they are not part of the tiebreak anymore.

 

[gcoast3]

How do most leagues handle the Waiver Wire during the Playoffs?

 

[GregR]

How do most leagues handle the Waiver Wire during the Playoffs?

I imagine it is split between leaving them the same as during regular season, shutting them down completely, or only allowing teams still in the playoffs to use them.I think the last one is best. The first is probably widespread but probably people who've never given it any thought.Dynasty leagues I think waivers should be available to everyone whenever they are open.

 

[solorca]

It should also be determined if you do NFL style seeding in the second round (assuming you have 6 playoff teams with two byes). Some leagues play a standard 3/6 winner plays the #2 seed and 4/5 plays the #1 seed, while others like to re-seed (top remaining seed plays the #2, lowest plays the #1). Make sure everyone in the league is aware of this, because I see arguments about it every season.

 

[ShaqAttaq]

This has inspired me to do this tomorrow

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

5) In multi-team tiebreaks, state explicitly whether you restart the tiebreak each time a team is eliminated from it.

But first you need to determine if you break ties through elimination or not! For example, let's say you've got 3 teams tied, and the 3 team tiebreaker is "Total Points" but the 2 team tiebreaker is "Head To Head":Team A: 1-2 vs. B, 2-1 vs. C; 1600 total points

Team B: 2-1 vs. A, 2-1 vs. C; 1200 total points

Team C: 1-2 vs. A, 1-2 vs. B; 2000 total points

How do you want to break this tie? Do you want to start by eliminating the team with the lowest point total (Team B)? That would give top seed to Team A.

Or do you want to start by choosing the team with the highest point total? That would give the top seed to Team C.

This one isn't an issue. If you have 3 tied teams, and you have a 3 team tiebreak of "total points", then you look at all 3 teams total points. Only one of them has the most, so he wins the tiebreak.You never make it to a 2 team tiebreak in your example.

Now let's make it a 4 team situation, with a team D who also has 2000 points. In that case, you apply the multi-team tiebreak (assuming 3 team tiebreak means 3+ teams). The top point total is 2000 so anyone who doesn't have that is eliminated, leaving teams C and D.

Now since you are down to 2 teams and you have a different tiebreak to use for 2 teams, you apply it, and it would come down to Head to Head games between teams C and D only.

The bolded part is why it's important you restart the tiebreak again once teams are eliminated from the tiebreak. You no longer count A or B games if they are not part of the tiebreak anymore.

I could reasonably argue that your interpretation here is incorrect. Sea Duck's right - you have to spell out whether you pick from the top or eliminate from the bottom at every step of the tiebreaker. This is a regular source of confusion and debate in these types of threads. It's not at all obvious that your implementation here is the "right" one.

 

[GregR]

5) In multi-team tiebreaks, state explicitly whether you restart the tiebreak each time a team is eliminated from it.

But first you need to determine if you break ties through elimination or not! For example, let's say you've got 3 teams tied, and the 3 team tiebreaker is "Total Points" but the 2 team tiebreaker is "Head To Head":Team A: 1-2 vs. B, 2-1 vs. C; 1600 total points

Team B: 2-1 vs. A, 2-1 vs. C; 1200 total points

Team C: 1-2 vs. A, 1-2 vs. B; 2000 total points

How do you want to break this tie? Do you want to start by eliminating the team with the lowest point total (Team B)? That would give top seed to Team A.

Or do you want to start by choosing the team with the highest point total? That would give the top seed to Team C.

This one isn't an issue. If you have 3 tied teams, and you have a 3 team tiebreak of "total points", then you look at all 3 teams total points. Only one of them has the most, so he wins the tiebreak.You never make it to a 2 team tiebreak in your example.

Now let's make it a 4 team situation, with a team D who also has 2000 points. In that case, you apply the multi-team tiebreak (assuming 3 team tiebreak means 3+ teams). The top point total is 2000 so anyone who doesn't have that is eliminated, leaving teams C and D.

Now since you are down to 2 teams and you have a different tiebreak to use for 2 teams, you apply it, and it would come down to Head to Head games between teams C and D only.

The bolded part is why it's important you restart the tiebreak again once teams are eliminated from the tiebreak. You no longer count A or B games if they are not part of the tiebreak anymore.

I could reasonably argue that your interpretation here is incorrect. Sea Duck's right - you have to spell out whether you pick from the top or eliminate from the bottom at every step of the tiebreaker. This is a regular source of confusion and debate in these types of threads. It's not at all obvious that your implementation here is the "right" one.

No, that wouldn't be a reasonable argument. "Total Points" for a tie breaker implies having the highest total points. Just like "winning percentage" implies having the highest winning percentage. It's understood it is highest is best. That means if you don't have the highest total points amongst tied teams, then you don't make it past that step of the tiebreak.If your tiebreaker was "not being worst total points" then it would work how you just said and only the worst total points would be eliminated.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It's understood

It's not. That's my point. I'm not saying I actually disagree with your interpretation. But some people inevitably will, and if I was one of them I could definitely cast enough doubt that your proposed interpretation would not be universally recognized as the correct one. In any case, you (like me) are obviously in favor of having clear and comprehensive rules. I don't see why you'd be opposed to adding one extra line to ensure there was no confusion. I know from experience it's worth spelling out rather than assuming everyone will see it your way.

 

[GregR]

Bump for Sunday morning folks.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

3 years ago we had a tie for the last playoff spot and not enough tie breaker rules to break the tie. So week one of the playoffs we had a game pitting the 1st place team against two teams (the teams that were in a tie for 8th). We got lucky because the 1 seed won, but that would have been brutal if he had lost.

 

[Topes]

Bump again. This thread will be a useful reference point for all the leagues in which these problems happen.

My main league still used "NFL style" tie-breakers, and it is indeed confusing for all at times.

As commish, when announcing the seeding, I break down how each seed was selected.

Many years, the convoluted select-restart and reject-restart rules don't even come into play. But when they do, and when division tie-breakers are used to get each division down to 1 team before applying wild-card tie-breakers, heads can explode.

 

[Johnny Blood]

3 years ago we had a tie for the last playoff spot and not enough tie breaker rules to break the tie. So week one of the playoffs we had a game pitting the 1st place team against two teams (the teams that were in a tie for 8th). We got lucky because the 1 seed won, but that would have been brutal if he had lost.

I'm not criticizing you, but want to say that if anyone ends up in this predicament, don't do this. It is completely unfair to have to play against two teams. Since at this point any solution is going to make someone mad, at least do something that is fair and randomly eliminate one of the last teams. For example, flip a coin.

 

[GregR]

3 years ago we had a tie for the last playoff spot and not enough tie breaker rules to break the tie. So week one of the playoffs we had a game pitting the 1st place team against two teams (the teams that were in a tie for 8th). We got lucky because the 1 seed won, but that would have been brutal if he had lost.

I'm not criticizing you, but want to say that if anyone ends up in this predicament, don't do this. It is completely unfair to have to play against two teams. Since at this point any solution is going to make someone mad, at least do something that is fair and randomly eliminate one of the last teams. For example, flip a coin.

I agree. The 1st seed had to play against the highest score of two teams, which is a big net increase in the expected points he's likely to face.Coin flip would be better. Or roll a random number from 1 to the number of weeks in the regular season and use those team's regular season score that week to break the tie.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=670447

 

[solorca]

3 years ago we had a tie for the last playoff spot and not enough tie breaker rules to break the tie. So week one of the playoffs we had a game pitting the 1st place team against two teams (the teams that were in a tie for 8th). We got lucky because the 1 seed won, but that would have been brutal if he had lost.

This may be the worst solution that I've ever seen. As a reward for being the #1 seed, he had to play TWO teams? That's just terrible.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

Just heard a really cool idea for fantasy playoffs on the Fantasy Today show:

Its in the last minute of the show if you want to skip the rest >>

My link

They heard of one 12 team league where EVERYONE makes the playoffs but the top teams get to choose which team they face.

So the top seed can choose to play the lowest seed and the second seed can choose the second lowest etc. If someone gets upset then the next highest ranked team gets to choose who they play in the next round.

I thought that was/is an interesting idea and shake things up at playoff time and keep everone involved and prevent bye weeks for top seeds.

Thought I'd pass it along.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Make sure if you use CBS, that you understand they do not make any stat corrections after 6AM following the last game of the week for the final regular season week of the season:

For week's including NFL Thursday games, all statistics will be final as of Thursday morning at 6:00 AM ET. In the final week of your fantasy regular season and all fantasy league playoff weeks, statistics will not be changed as of 6:00 AM ET following the final game of the week.

 

[blake]

This is a wonderful thread; thank you for it. I just examined my league's tiebreaker rules for playoff seeding and playoff berths, and hopefully they are sufficient.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

3 years ago we had a tie for the last playoff spot and not enough tie breaker rules to break the tie. So week one of the playoffs we had a game pitting the 1st place team against two teams (the teams that were in a tie for 8th). We got lucky because the 1 seed won, but that would have been brutal if he had lost.

I'm not criticizing you, but want to say that if anyone ends up in this predicament, don't do this. It is completely unfair to have to play against two teams. Since at this point any solution is going to make someone mad, at least do something that is fair and randomly eliminate one of the last teams. For example, flip a coin.

Well - I agree entirely - but that was the ruling of the commish and he is the type that wants control and was not open to suggestions. He was very lucky it worked out. After that year we proposed a more thorough tie breaker list which did eventually go to a coin flip so this abortion would not happen again. Now it is - overall record, head to head (in the event of more than two teams then it is skipped unless each team has played the other teams an equal number of times), divisional record, point differential (I proposed points scored - but the league voted for differential), then coin flip.