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

[Duckboy]

Some interesting calls here. That said, after the fact coin flip/some type of lottery is about the only answer. Maybe rock paper scissors.

 

[Crash and Walk Away]

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.

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?

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

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.

Yes - its based on Team A winning the semifinal while the loser of B and C tying.

 

[ghostguy123]

If you currently have no tiebreaker then yeah, all you can do is a coinflip type deal.

 

[Sam Quentin]

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.

That screws over team A who goes from 50% chance to win it all to 33%

 

[Keith R]

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.

That screws over team A who goes from 50% chance to win it all to 33%

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 wins

 

[Sarlakticacid]

If it’s a single game on the spot decision, team/single player that exceeds projections the most

 

[Dr. Octopus]

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

We name one player from the bench before the game to be used as a tie-breaker.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Higher seed wins. Think of it like home field advantage.

This is the best answer.

 

[Anarchy99]

Higher seed wins. Think of it like home field advantage.

This is the best answer.

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?

 

[Crash and Walk Away]

Higher seed wins. Think of it like home field advantage.

This is the best answer.

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 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.

 

[Bracie Smathers]

How do you think playoff ties should be resolved?​

>>> Have a chew

 

[DropKick]

Higher seed wins. Think of it like home field advantage.

This is the best answer.

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?

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.

Another idea for a tie breaker is actual NFL points. In addition to TDs, count safeties, conversions, field goals and extra points. This is more likely to not result in another tie.

If you can't break the tie, the (B+C)/2 proposal has some merit. If A is the highest scoring team, it is the rightful winner with B & C splitting the loser share. Likewise, if B is the lowest scoring team, it is the rightful loser with B & C splitting a winner's share. Otherwise, with A in the middle, he does well with half of both the winner and loser's share. B & C get half a share depending on if they were the highest or lowest scoring team. Overall, pretty equitable given the problem.

However, I do like the idea of a league champion and the "bragging rights" that go with it. The actual money involved would be a big factor for me in deciding on a solution.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Slap contest.

Trust me. It's the best thing for your league.

 

[Dez]

There are any number of good ways to have a tie breaker the problem we have here is somehow none was in place before the game began which is Inconceivable to me.

As a commish of 33 years of experience I honestly don't know how that could have happened I have had a tie breaker in place since 1990.

Been thinking this over not sure why but this is the best solution I can come up with.

What if you did a 3 way playoff with this caveat. The 2 teams tied will be playing off for 2nd place (and possible for the title).

For the team on the other side he will play the avg score of the 2 teams combined. Since we have no idea which team should have advanced he should be ok playing the avg score of both.

So the championship could still be any of the 3 teams and the 2 teams tied rightly play off and the team waiting on the other side of the bracket since he would have never known who he played anyway just plays their avg score.

Now the most unfair part of this is if Team A or B have high score over Team C and still loses.

Well we have to come up with some solution so unless your coin flipping or playing dice roll or whatever this is the best I got.

 

[nittanylion]

Boonks :abovetherim:

 

[zed2283]

Higher seed wins.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Higher seed wins.

Clearly you didn’t click my solution link above.

 

[Craig_MiamiFL]

No league winner. Refund everyone.

 

[jm192]

Do you use decimal scoring? If not, that's your answer.

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.

I like this a lot.

 

[jm192]

When I read "Highest seed wins. Think of it like home field advantage," I immediately loved it. You earned a higher seed. You should get some sort of home field advantage.

The flip side of that is--we've all had that league where you're 1st in points but keep coming across the team that goes off. So even though you've scored the most--you're in 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th place.

I think having the team that scores the most points=the best team. And that should be rewarded. You've already had the fluky punishment of a lower seed--and that often means tougher matchups earlier in the playoffs. Giving the tie breaker to highest points at least gives you SOME small benefit after being punished for having the wrong matchup at the wrong time.

I do however really like the idea of submitting 3 ranked bench players and using their scores to break the tie.