I would go with just about any of the suggestions list in this thread EXCEPT H2H. Teams don't play each other in fantasy football. On any given week, my players square off against other teams than yours do. On the randomly selected week we play each other half of my team might have been on bye, while none of yours were. How could that be conceived as a fair way of deciding who moves on and who heads to the golf course?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.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).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.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.Both teams move on. Three teams head-to-head-to head the next week.
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.
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.
A H2H record of the two teams if they played each other over the entire season would be a good solution also.
I think I am better understanding what you are suggesting, just maybe in a different way. Team A automatically gets paid second place money. Three team battle royale for first place. If Team A wins, he gets first place money instead of second place money. In that case, whoever scores more between Teams B and C gets second place money. If either Team B or Team C wins, that team gets first place money and the team that doesn't win gets third. That seems mostly fair, except if Teams B and C finish 1 and 2 (but tough noogies for the loser of those two teams). That's probably what you posted before, but it sank in more for me since then.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.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).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.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.Both teams move on. Three teams head-to-head-to head the next week.
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.
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.
A H2H record of the two teams if they played each other over the entire season would be a good solution also.
Yes - its based on Team A winning the semifinal while the loser of B and C tying.I think I am better understanding what you are suggesting, just maybe in a different way. Team A automatically gets paid second place money. Three team battle royale for first place. If Team A wins, he gets first place money instead of second place money. In that case, whoever scores more between Teams B and C gets second place money. If either Team B or Team C wins, that team gets first place money and the team that doesn't win gets third. That seems mostly fair, except if Teams B and C finish 1 and 2 (but tough noogies for the loser of those two teams). That's probably what you posted before, but it sank in more for me since then.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.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).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.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.Both teams move on. Three teams head-to-head-to head the next week.
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.
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.
A H2H record of the two teams if they played each other over the entire season would be a good solution also.
That screws over team A who goes from 50% chance to win it all to 33%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.
Yeah. It's messy, but if you really want 3 teams in the final in this situation, do this; If A beats the average score of B and C, they win. If not, the highest scoring team between B and C winsThat screws over team A who goes from 50% chance to win it all to 33%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.
We name one player from the bench before the game to be used as a tie-breaker.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
This is the best answer.Higher seed wins. Think of it like home field advantage.
What if the higher seed is a division winner in the worst division at 7-9 and the other team is a wildcard at 12-4?This is the best answer.Higher seed wins. Think of it like home field advantage.
This is why I like points better if you're going to use a stat from the regular season. It's a better indicator of team strength.What if the higher seed is a division winner in the worst division at 7-9 and the other team is a wildcard at 12-4?This is the best answer.Higher seed wins. Think of it like home field advantage.
We do our seedings based on record rather than divisions. With three divisions of four teams, eleven of fourteen games is a common schedule. Sure, the three extra games within your division might be "harder" than others but we ignore that year to year randomness.What if the higher seed is a division winner in the worst division at 7-9 and the other team is a wildcard at 12-4?This is the best answer.Higher seed wins. Think of it like home field advantage.
Clearly you didn’t click my solution link above.Higher seed wins.
I like this a lot.We have decimals to two places and still had two ties this year. Really odd. We list three bench players in order for our tie breakers. Usually backup QB is the top one listed for each team.Do you use decimal scoring? If not, that's your answer.