How do you think playoff ties should be resolved? (1 Viewer)

[Deamon]

We had a tie in the semifinals in one of my leagues this past week. What do you think is the best way to award a berth in the finals? Note: I'd rather hear how you think it *should* be resolved, rather than how it is currently resolved in your league(s).

- Joe

So what did you guys end up deciding? I'm assuming you didn't have anything stated in your rules?

 

[BassNBrew]

Both teams move on. Three teams head-to-head-to head the next week.

Not fair to the team that won outright. Shouldn't have to beat two opponents. No way that team should have any chance of coming in third.

All this gets us back to what I mentioned earlier. There is no appropriate / fair way to come up with a tiebreaker after the fact. Obviously needs to be spelled out in the rules moving forward.

A - Won out right
B and C - Tied

Final

B plays C, winner is the finalist.
A plays (B+C) / 2

While A is still technically playing two teams, A only has to best one score to win the title.

 

[Rookiefever]

We had a tie in the semifinals in one of my leagues this past week. What do you think is the best way to award a berth in the finals? Note: I'd rather hear how you think it *should* be resolved, rather than how it is currently resolved in your league(s).

- Joe

I think touchdowns scored is a great tb

 

[Deamon]

Both teams move on. Three teams head-to-head-to head the next week.

Not fair to the team that won outright. Shouldn't have to beat two opponents. No way that team should have any chance of coming in third.

All this gets us back to what I mentioned earlier. There is no appropriate / fair way to come up with a tiebreaker after the fact. Obviously needs to be spelled out in the rules moving forward.

A - Won out right
B and C - Tied

Final

B plays C, winner is the finalist.
A plays (B+C) / 2

While A is still technically playing two teams, A only has to best one score to win the title.

This is pretty interesting. If B crushes C though, he's going to be mad because his chance at the title is tied to team C doing well. Would be really stressful for B and C, wanting to win their matchup but also wanting their opponent to put up a big score

EDT: An alternative to this could be that A plays the average of B and C's finals score. Any money won by the B/C average gets split between the two.

 

[Crash and Walk Away]

We had a tie in the semifinals in one of my leagues this past week. What do you think is the best way to award a berth in the finals? Note: I'd rather hear how you think it *should* be resolved, rather than how it is currently resolved in your league(s).

- Joe

So what did you guys end up deciding? I'm assuming you didn't have anything stated in your rules?

Nothing in our current rules addresses this problem. In order to move forward, the Commish applied his preference to award the win.
We're gathering insights from others to put something in the rules for future years.

 

[Mitchie]

Personally I think highest seed is the fairest way, although other ideas here could work as well. A tie out to two decimal places is quite rare.

For this season, I don't think you should choose something after the fact and at this point I would just flip a coin or use some other random way like a horse race or something.

We're not coming up with a solution for this week. Since unaddressed in our rule book, the Commish made a command decision all have accepted. This discussion is for what we put in the rule book for subsequent years.

What was the command decision?

Higher seed.

Surprised the lower seed accepted that. I don't think I would have if wasn't in the rules ahead of time.

If you were the lower seed, just what would you have done to "not accept it"?

I just would've objected and asked for a coin flip. Seems like the fairest way to resolve without a rule in place.

 

[Gally]

The only other outcome that I could think of (which admittedly isn't great) would be to move the league final out a week and have the teams that tied face off this week instead. The problem with that, of course, is some NFL players might sit the last week of the NFL season.

Would it be too much advantage to do that format but have Team A put lineups in both this week and next week and then gets the highest of his two weeks vs the winner of the tied team's rematch? I mean lets really complicate this thing up.

So Team B vs Team C in week 17. Highest team is in the Super Bowl with that score. Team A gets a score from Week 17 and a score from Week 18 and gets his highest of those totals. This helps counteract the idea of having to beat two teams if both teams moved on.

 

[Gally]

A - Won out right
B and C - Tied

Final

B plays C, winner is the finalist.
A plays (B+C) / 2

While A is still technically playing two teams, A only has to best one score to win the title.

I like it. Plus the tied teams get a slight disadvantage because the winner's score gets lowered. Interesting idea.

 

[Deamon]

In order to move forward, the Commish applied his preference to award the win.

And which tie breaker did he choose?

 

[Crash and Walk Away]

In order to move forward, the Commish applied his preference to award the win.

And which tie breaker did he choose?

Highest seed.

 

[Anarchy99]

The only other outcome that I could think of (which admittedly isn't great) would be to move the league final out a week and have the teams that tied face off this week instead. The problem with that, of course, is some NFL players might sit the last week of the NFL season.

Would it be too much advantage to do that format but have Team A put lineups in both this week and next week and then gets the highest of his two weeks vs the winner of the tied team's rematch? I mean lets really complicate this thing up.

So Team B vs Team C in week 17. Highest team is in the Super Bowl with that score. Team A gets a score from Week 17 and a score from Week 18 and gets his highest of those totals. This helps counteract the idea of having to beat two teams if both teams moved on.

IMO, no matter what any of us come up with as a work around, it won't be in the rules and there will be outcomes that won't work for everyone.

 

[Mitchie]

The only other outcome that I could think of (which admittedly isn't great) would be to move the league final out a week and have the teams that tied face off this week instead. The problem with that, of course, is some NFL players might sit the last week of the NFL season.

Would it be too much advantage to do that format but have Team A put lineups in both this week and next week and then gets the highest of his two weeks vs the winner of the tied team's rematch? I mean lets really complicate this thing up.

So Team B vs Team C in week 17. Highest team is in the Super Bowl with that score. Team A gets a score from Week 17 and a score from Week 18 and gets his highest of those totals. This helps counteract the idea of having to beat two teams if both teams moved on.

IMO, no matter what any of us come up with as a work around, it won't be in the rules and there will be outcomes that won't work for everyone.

Coin flip works for everyone.

BTW this is last tiebreaker for NFL playoff teams, granted chances of it coming to that are prob incredibly low, but it's there.

 

[Gally]

IMO, no matter what any of us come up with as a work around, it won't be in the rules and there will be outcomes that won't work for everyone.

Totally agree. This is more of a function of trying to come up with interesting playoff tiebreakers to just discuss the plusses/minuses and oddities.

ETA: The only real option for the OP situation is to flip a coin. There is no rule for it so nothing else should be considered because it will favor one team or the other no matter what. Flip a coin, run a sprint, chug a beer, plank contest, whatever. But it should be something that isn't biased

 

[Anarchy99]

A - Won out right
B and C - Tied

Final

B plays C, winner is the finalist.
A plays (B+C) / 2

While A is still technically playing two teams, A only has to best one score to win the title.

I like it. Plus the tied teams get a slight disadvantage because the winner's score gets lowered. Interesting idea.

Let's play this out.
Team A scores 150. Team B scores 175. Team C scores 100. B beats C.

A = 150 vs. (B175 + C100)/2 = 137.5.

Are we really going to declare Team A the winner when Team B scored 175 points?

 

[Gally]

Let's play this out.
Team A scores 150. Team B scores 175. Team C scores 100. B beats C.

A = 150 vs. (B175 + C100)/2 = 137.5.

Are we really going to declare Team A the winner when Team B scored 175 points?

Maybe. Would it be better to do 2/3 instead of half? 3/4? I mean there is basically a 50-50 chance that Team A should have played Team C who scored 100 pts. As long as the rule is known ahead of time it's fair. The whole system is random on who scores anyway.

 

[BassNBrew]

A - Won out right
B and C - Tied

Final

B plays C, winner is the finalist.
A plays (B+C) / 2

While A is still technically playing two teams, A only has to best one score to win the title.

I like it. Plus the tied teams get a slight disadvantage because the winner's score gets lowered. Interesting idea.

Let's play this out.
Team A scores 150. Team B scores 175. Team C scores 100. B beats C.

A = 150 vs. (B175 + C100)/2 = 137.5.

Are we really going to declare Team A the winner when Team B scored 175 points?

Yes, because team A should have had a 50% chance of playing team C. If team B didn't want that handicap, then they should have scored one more point last week.

It's not a perfect solution, but it does give A only one opponent and it gives both B and C a shot at the title when other fairest way after the fact to declare a winner was a coin flip.

 

[Deamon]

A - Won out right
B and C - Tied

Final

B plays C, winner is the finalist.
A plays (B+C) / 2

While A is still technically playing two teams, A only has to best one score to win the title.

I like it. Plus the tied teams get a slight disadvantage because the winner's score gets lowered. Interesting idea.

Let's play this out.
Team A scores 150. Team B scores 175. Team C scores 100. B beats C.

A = 150 vs. (B175 + C100)/2 = 137.5.

Are we really going to declare Team A the winner when Team B scored 175 points?

Or you flip a coin and C wins and A wins the title even easier. Or maybe team C is higher seed and goes through, then A wins anyways.

 

[Deamon]

In order to move forward, the Commish applied his preference to award the win.

And which tie breaker did he choose?

Highest seed.

and how did the lower seed take it?

 

[BassNBrew]

Let's play this out.
Team A scores 150. Team B scores 175. Team C scores 100. B beats C.

A = 150 vs. (B175 + C100)/2 = 137.5.

Are we really going to declare Team A the winner when Team B scored 175 points?

Maybe. Would it be better to do 2/3 instead of half? 3/4? I mean there is basically a 50-50 chance that Team A should have played Team C who scored 100 pts. As long as the rule is known ahead of time it's fair. The whole system is random on who scores anyway.

Your second statement is why you have to do 50/50. Assuming a coin flip tiebreaker with those scores, A is a 50% likely to win the title.

Who says no to that solution between A, B, and C assuming the commish doesn't gift a championship berth based on an after the fact decision. If I'm B or C I take that over a coin flip and if I'm A I take that over the winner of a coin flip.

 

[Instinctive]

We do most points scored this year, including that game (unless someone had a bye)

 

[ghostguy123]

The only other outcome that I could think of (which admittedly isn't great) would be to move the league final out a week and have the teams that tied face off this week instead. The problem with that, of course, is some NFL players might sit the last week of the NFL season.

Ewww

 

[Anarchy99]

Let's play this out.
Team A scores 150. Team B scores 175. Team C scores 100. B beats C.

A = 150 vs. (B175 + C100)/2 = 137.5.

Are we really going to declare Team A the winner when Team B scored 175 points?

Maybe. Would it be better to do 2/3 instead of half? 3/4? I mean there is basically a 50-50 chance that Team A should have played Team C who scored 100 pts. As long as the rule is known ahead of time it's fair. The whole system is random on who scores anyway.

I still think the "fairest" outcome where 3 teams still have a chance to win something is to have 2 games on the final weekend: A vs. B and A vs C. Winner of Game 1 gets 50% of first place money. Loser of Game 1 gets 50% of second place money. Winner of Game 2 gets 50% of first place money. Loser of Game 2 gets 50% of second place money.

Possible outcomes . . .
Team A goes 2-0, gets 100% of first place money
Team A goes 1-1, gets 50% of first place money and 50% of second place money
Team A goes 0-2, gets 100% of second place money
Team B or Team C go 1-0, each gets 50% of first place money
Team B or Team C go 0-1, each gets 50% of second place money

I get that Team A could gripe about having to play 2 games, but by going 1-1, that's a better payday than only playing 1 game and losing outright. It also makes for a weird outcome if Team A loses both games, as there technically wouldn't be a league champion.

 

[Anarchy99]

The only other outcome that I could think of (which admittedly isn't great) would be to move the league final out a week and have the teams that tied face off this week instead. The problem with that, of course, is some NFL players might sit the last week of the NFL season.

Ewww

I don't like it as an option, either.

 

[Crash and Walk Away]

In order to move forward, the Commish applied his preference to award the win.

And which tie breaker did he choose?

Highest seed.

and how did the lower seed take it?

The lower seed respected the tough situation the Commish was in, and went on to fight another day.

 

[BassNBrew]

Let's play this out.
Team A scores 150. Team B scores 175. Team C scores 100. B beats C.

A = 150 vs. (B175 + C100)/2 = 137.5.

Are we really going to declare Team A the winner when Team B scored 175 points?

Maybe. Would it be better to do 2/3 instead of half? 3/4? I mean there is basically a 50-50 chance that Team A should have played Team C who scored 100 pts. As long as the rule is known ahead of time it's fair. The whole system is random on who scores anyway.

I still think the "fairest" outcome where 3 teams still have a chance to win something is to have 2 games on the final weekend: A vs. B and A vs C. Winner of Game 1 gets 50% of first place money. Loser of Game 1 gets 50% of second place money. Winner of Game 2 gets 50% of first place money. Loser of Game 2 gets 50% of second place money.

Possible outcomes . . .
Team A goes 2-0, gets 100% of first place money
Team A goes 1-1, gets 50% of first place money and 50% of second place money
Team A goes 0-2, gets 100% of second place money
Team B or Team C go 1-0, each gets 50% of first place money
Team B or Team C go 0-1, each gets 50% of second place money

I get that Team A could gripe about having to play 2 games, but by going 1-1, that's a better payday than only playing 1 game and losing outright. It also makes for a weird outcome if Team A loses both games, as there technically wouldn't be a league champion.

I like this solution too.

 

[Gally]

I still think the "fairest" outcome where 3 teams still have a chance to win something is to have 2 games on the final weekend: A vs. B and A vs C. Winner of Game 1 gets 50% of first place money. Loser of Game 1 gets 50% of second place money. Winner of Game 2 gets 50% of first place money. Loser of Game 2 gets 50% of second place money.

Possible outcomes . . .
Team A goes 2-0, gets 100% of first place money
Team A goes 1-1, gets 50% of first place money and 50% of second place money
Team A goes 0-2, gets 100% of second place money
Team B or Team C go 1-0, each gets 50% of first place money
Team B or Team C go 0-1, each gets 50% of second place money

I get that Team A could gripe about having to play 2 games, but by going 1-1, that's a better payday than only playing 1 game and losing outright. It also makes for a weird outcome if Team A loses both games, as there technically wouldn't be a league champion.

I actually think we have a winner. This is by far the fairest outcome to all. I think it is even the fairest for Team A even though they are playing two games.

 

[Deamon]

Let's play this out.
Team A scores 150. Team B scores 175. Team C scores 100. B beats C.

A = 150 vs. (B175 + C100)/2 = 137.5.

Are we really going to declare Team A the winner when Team B scored 175 points?

Maybe. Would it be better to do 2/3 instead of half? 3/4? I mean there is basically a 50-50 chance that Team A should have played Team C who scored 100 pts. As long as the rule is known ahead of time it's fair. The whole system is random on who scores anyway.

I still think the "fairest" outcome where 3 teams still have a chance to win something is to have 2 games on the final weekend: A vs. B and A vs C. Winner of Game 1 gets 50% of first place money. Loser of Game 1 gets 50% of second place money. Winner of Game 2 gets 50% of first place money. Loser of Game 2 gets 50% of second place money.

Possible outcomes . . .
Team A goes 2-0, gets 100% of first place money
Team A goes 1-1, gets 50% of first place money and 50% of second place money
Team A goes 0-2, gets 100% of second place money
Team B or Team C go 1-0, each gets 50% of first place money
Team B or Team C go 0-1, each gets 50% of second place money

I get that Team A could gripe about having to play 2 games, but by going 1-1, that's a better payday than only playing 1 game and losing outright. It also makes for a weird outcome if Team A loses both games, as there technically wouldn't be a league champion.

I like this. But what if A loses to both of them? 100% or 2nd place money is often more than 50% of 1st place money.

 

[Anarchy99]

I still think the "fairest" outcome where 3 teams still have a chance to win something is to have 2 games on the final weekend: A vs. B and A vs C. Winner of Game 1 gets 50% of first place money. Loser of Game 1 gets 50% of second place money. Winner of Game 2 gets 50% of first place money. Loser of Game 2 gets 50% of second place money.

Possible outcomes . . .
Team A goes 2-0, gets 100% of first place money
Team A goes 1-1, gets 50% of first place money and 50% of second place money
Team A goes 0-2, gets 100% of second place money
Team B or Team C go 1-0, each gets 50% of first place money
Team B or Team C go 0-1, each gets 50% of second place money

I get that Team A could gripe about having to play 2 games, but by going 1-1, that's a better payday than only playing 1 game and losing outright. It also makes for a weird outcome if Team A loses both games, as there technically wouldn't be a league champion.

I actually think we have a winner. This is by far the fairest outcome to all. I think it is even the fairest for Team A even though they are playing two games.

Now imagine declaring a champion when games WEREN'T played to decide a winner. I remember back in 2020 when my son's HS basketball team was a title contender. They were advancing through the state D-1 basketball tournament when the tournament was shut down and never completed. They were scheduled to play a team they already destroyed, and if they won, they would have gone on to play a team they had already beaten (assuming that team won their game). Both of those schools were higher seeds, as they each had won one more game on the season. Those two schools were declared co-champions, and our son's team apparently was just assumed would have lost one of those games (even though they didn't get to play). Thank you, COVID.

 

[Dez]

Well there should have been a rule in place before the season began. The simplest way for each team to designate a tie breaker player before the game begins and if the teams tie the highest tie breaker player wins. Should they also tie in my league it reverts to the single highest scoring player teams win and if they tie it will continue to the next highest scoring player on each team over and over until a tie is broken.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Well there should have been a rule in place before the season began.

 

[Dez]

In a league I run that uses decimal system and tie it is the highest scoring starting player that gives the team the win. We don't do tie breaker players in this format since the odds of tying a slim but this rule has been in place since the league started in 2010. These rules always need to be in place before the season begins it is impossible to have a tie then have to make a rule because whoever loses and rightfully so will be pissed.

 

[Gally]

I like this. But what if A loses to both of them? 100% or 2nd place money is often more than 50% of 1st place money.

If Team loses both games then they would have lost to which ever team won the "tie break" and should get 100% of 2nd place money (which is what was listed in anarchy's solution). I am not sure what you are getting at here.

 

[Anarchy99]

I like this. But what if A loses to both of them? 100% or 2nd place money is often more than 50% of 1st place money.

If Team loses both games then they would have lost to which ever team won the "tie break" and should get 100% of 2nd place money (which is what was listed in anarchy's solution). I am not sure what you are getting at here.

I believe his point is Team A could win more money by losing two games than either Team B or Team C would get by winning their game. That's sort of my point. Team A shouldn't lose any money for making the final game.

 

[Crash and Walk Away]

In a league I run that uses decimal system and tie it is the highest scoring starting player that gives the team the win. We don't do tie breaker players in this format since the odds of tying a slim but this rule has been in place since the league started in 2010. These rules always need to be in place before the season begins it is impossible to have a tie then have to make a rule because whoever loses and rightfully so will be pissed.

Most, if not all of us, would agree with your last sentence. But, alas, we live in an imperfect world. And we're not always able to anticipate every contingency. So when that inevitability reveals itself, we are left with coming up with the best (not necessarily completely un-flawed) rule for the future. That's what this discussion is designed to generate.

 

[Anarchy99]

In a league I run that uses decimal system and tie it is the highest scoring starting player that gives the team the win. We don't do tie breaker players in this format since the odds of tying a slim but this rule has been in place since the league started in 2010. These rules always need to be in place before the season begins it is impossible to have a tie then have to make a rule because whoever loses and rightfully so will be pissed.

Most, if not all of us, would agree with your last sentence. But, alas, we live in an imperfect world. And we're not always able to anticipate every contingency. So when that inevitability reveals itself, we are left with coming up with the best (not necessarily completely un-flawed) rule for the future. That's what this discussion is designed to generate.

Imperfect outcomes can also lead to interesting solutions. Maybe you could get all three teams to voluntarily agree to a three-team final contest where the winner gets the winnings from all three teams. It's always better to get people to volunteer their own solution than have to arbitrarily legislate one. Maybe they would go for it, maybe they wouldn't.

 

[Gally]

Imperfect outcomes can also lead to interesting solutions. Maybe you could get all three teams to voluntarily agree to a three-team final contest where the winner gets the winnings from all three teams. It's always better to get people to volunteer their own solution than have to arbitrarily legislate one. Maybe they would go for it, maybe they wouldn't.

I guarantee the team that lost because he was the lower seed will go for it.

 

[Deamon]

I like this. But what if A loses to both of them? 100% or 2nd place money is often more than 50% of 1st place money.

If Team loses both games then they would have lost to which ever team won the "tie break" and should get 100% of 2nd place money (which is what was listed in anarchy's solution). I am not sure what you are getting at here.

Just that Team A could lose both games and make more money than A or B makes.
Overall the solution is still pretty great for a league scrambling for one. But don't think I'd make this confusion as a set rule for the future. Easier to just put in a tie breaker like seed or most tds or highest scoring player etc in next year

 

[Gally]

Just that Team A could lose both games and make more money than A or B makes.
Overall the solution is still pretty great for a league scrambling for one. But don't think I'd make this confusion as a set rule for the future. Easier to just put in a tie breaker like seed or most tds or highest scoring player etc in next year

But Team A would not lose out on anything they "earned". Team B/C are then getting more than they would if they would have lost the tie break so they are ahead in that way. Seems like a win-win

 

[Wrigley]

Whomever has the hottest wife should win.

 

[Deamon]

Just that Team A could lose both games and make more money than A or B makes.
Overall the solution is still pretty great for a league scrambling for one. But don't think I'd make this confusion as a set rule for the future. Easier to just put in a tie breaker like seed or most tds or highest scoring player etc in next year

But Team A would not lose out on anything they "earned". Team B/C are then getting more than they would if they would have lost the tie break so they are ahead in that way. Seems like a win-win

Yes perhaps. But if I'm team B, and I'm stuck with 50% of first place money even though I put up 200 points, then I'm not happy. Especialy if team B was the higher seed.
Like I say though, I agree it's pretty great, but would never put this in as a future rule. But it would work pretty good for the OP's question. However it looks like they've already decided.

 

[Gally]

Whomever has the hottest wife should win.

They are already a winner so it should actually be the opposite.

 

[Gally]

Yes perhaps. But if I'm team B, and I'm stuck with 50% of first place money even though I put up 200 points, then I'm not happy. Especialy if team B was the higher seed.
Like I say though, I agree it's pretty great, but would never put this in as a future rule. But it would work pretty good for the OP's question. However it looks like they've already decided.

maybe Team B and team C make a gentlemen's agreement just between themselves that the winner of their scores gets all the winnings between their two teams? So if they both have better scores than Team A the winner between them gets the whole winner's portion.

 

[FairWarning]

Both teams move on. Three teams head-to-head-to head the next week.

Not fair to the team that won outright. Shouldn't have to beat two opponents. No way that team should have any chance of coming in third.

All this gets us back to what I mentioned earlier. There is no appropriate / fair way to come up with a tiebreaker after the fact. Obviously needs to be spelled out in the rules moving forward.

Which in my solution, the team that won last week is guaranteed 2nd with a chance to win the title. The risk is on the other two as they are in a win or 3rd place. Now if you want to reward the team that won last week, give them the 1st chance at waivers this week. That would be a just reward also.

 

[Anarchy99]

Just that Team A could lose both games and make more money than A or B makes.
Overall the solution is still pretty great for a league scrambling for one. But don't think I'd make this confusion as a set rule for the future. Easier to just put in a tie breaker like seed or most tds or highest scoring player etc in next year

But Team A would not lose out on anything they "earned". Team B/C are then getting more than they would if they would have lost the tie break so they are ahead in that way. Seems like a win-win

Yes perhaps. But if I'm team B, and I'm stuck with 50% of first place money even though I put up 200 points, then I'm not happy. Especialy if team B was the higher seed.
Like I say though, I agree it's pretty great, but would never put this in as a future rule. But it would work pretty good for the OP's question. However it looks like they've already decided.

CLEARLY, the best situation for every league is to have every contingency and potential outcome covered and spelled out in the rules BEFORE it materializes in real life (and before the season starts). But seemingly every year there are threads like this one looking for workarounds after the fact (not just playoffs, but how to score isolated plays, how to handle strange lineup submittals, process waivers, etc.). I was only suggesting a way past the current blip in the radar, not something that would become a by law.

 

[FairWarning]

Both teams move on. Three teams head-to-head-to head the next week.

Not fair to the team that won outright. Shouldn't have to beat two opponents. No way that team should have any chance of coming in third.

All this gets us back to what I mentioned earlier. There is no appropriate / fair way to come up with a tiebreaker after the fact. Obviously needs to be spelled out in the rules moving forward.

A - Won out right
B and C - Tied

Final

B plays C, winner is the finalist.
A plays (B+C) / 2

While A is still technically playing two teams, A only has to best one score to win the title.

I thought about this also, interesting also.

 

[Anarchy99]

Both teams move on. Three teams head-to-head-to head the next week.

Not fair to the team that won outright. Shouldn't have to beat two opponents. No way that team should have any chance of coming in third.

All this gets us back to what I mentioned earlier. There is no appropriate / fair way to come up with a tiebreaker after the fact. Obviously needs to be spelled out in the rules moving forward.

Which in my solution, the team that won last week is guaranteed 2nd with a chance to win the title. The risk is on the other two as they are in a win or 3rd place. Now if you want to reward the team that won last week, give them the 1st chance at waivers this week. That would be a just reward also.

I don't hate your solution, but the team that won its game still has to beat two teams instead of one in the championship. If it's some of the guys I play with, that owner would gripe if he beat one team and lost to the other. "But if I played Team C, I woulda won the whole enchilada!" Obviously, the best outcome from a fairness perspective would be for the team that one the semifinals outright won the championship (ie, beating the two teams that tied).

I could even see an argument for Team A to be declared the league winner without having to play the championship (the logic being that no team won the other semifinal match). Then have the teams that tied play the championship week to determine who comes in second.

 

[Dez]

Well I thought this thread was for how should I handle ties for future you can't really break a tie with nothing in place already it would be unfair to everyone invovled.

You can't have both teams advance that is unfair to the other winner.

Honestly all you can do now is roll dice or flip a coin there is no way you can just make up some rule now and break the tie.

Let this be a lesson for anyone who reads this thread you must have a tie breaker rule in place for the playoffs before the season begins and certainly before the playoffs begin yet we see this kind of thread every year.

 

[DropKick]

Outside of the box here - team a is in the finals (won semifinals), teams b and c tied. Make all three submit a lineup. If you pay out top 2, Team A cannot finish lower than 2nd since they won last week. Team A wins title if he has top score of the three. The low score of B and C is 3rd place no matter what A does.

I like the creativity, but I don’t like team A having to outscore 2 teams in order to finish in first place.

Agreed. This has been discussed a few times over the years and it is unfair to team "A".

I think higher seed makes a lot of sense.

 

[FairWarning]

Both teams move on. Three teams head-to-head-to head the next week.

Not fair to the team that won outright. Shouldn't have to beat two opponents. No way that team should have any chance of coming in third.

All this gets us back to what I mentioned earlier. There is no appropriate / fair way to come up with a tiebreaker after the fact. Obviously needs to be spelled out in the rules moving forward.

Which in my solution, the team that won last week is guaranteed 2nd with a chance to win the title. The risk is on the other two as they are in a win or 3rd place. Now if you want to reward the team that won last week, give them the 1st chance at waivers this week. That would be a just reward also.

I don't hate your solution, but the team that won its game still has to beat two teams instead of one in the championship. If it's some of the guys I play with, that owner would gripe if he beat one team and lost to the other. "But if I played Team C, I woulda won the whole enchilada!" Obviously, the best outcome from a fairness perspective would be for the team that one the semifinals outright won the championship (ie, beating the two teams that tied).

I could even see an argument for Team A to be declared the league winner without having to play the championship (the logic being that no team won the other semifinal match). Then have the teams that tied play the championship week to determine who comes in second.

With this reasoning, the fairest solution may be to have Team A vs (B+C)/2. It’s interesting, I would probably vote for it.

A H2H record of the two teams if they played each other over the entire season would be a good solution also.

 

[Anarchy99]

Both teams move on. Three teams head-to-head-to head the next week.

Not fair to the team that won outright. Shouldn't have to beat two opponents. No way that team should have any chance of coming in third.

All this gets us back to what I mentioned earlier. There is no appropriate / fair way to come up with a tiebreaker after the fact. Obviously needs to be spelled out in the rules moving forward.

Which in my solution, the team that won last week is guaranteed 2nd with a chance to win the title. The risk is on the other two as they are in a win or 3rd place. Now if you want to reward the team that won last week, give them the 1st chance at waivers this week. That would be a just reward also.

I don't hate your solution, but the team that won its game still has to beat two teams instead of one in the championship. If it's some of the guys I play with, that owner would gripe if he beat one team and lost to the other. "But if I played Team C, I woulda won the whole enchilada!" Obviously, the best outcome from a fairness perspective would be for the team that one the semifinals outright won the championship (ie, beating the two teams that tied).

I could even see an argument for Team A to be declared the league winner without having to play the championship (the logic being that no team won the other semifinal match). Then have the teams that tied play the championship week to determine who comes in second.

With this reasoning, the fairest solution may be to have Team A vs (B+C)/2. It’s interesting, I would probably vote for it.

A H2H record of the two teams if they played each other over the entire season would be a good solution also.

At this point, we collectively are replicating ideas and posts. My concern for the (B+C)/2 proposal is that if Team B or Team C posts the highest score of the 3 teams, it's possible that team wouldn't win. Put another way, if I were the owner of the highest scoring team and didn't win, I wouldn't take it well.