Playoff Tie (1 Viewer)

[bigpelly8]

Hey all...looking for a bit of help....

The worst case scenario has happened for my 4 yr old keeper. Two teams tied in the playoffs. Winner should have gone to the finals. Long story short, last year we all selected a bench player to be used as a tie breaker. This season, for one reason or another, no tie breakers were set, and no players were selected.

So....Go to bed on monday, and One team is up 112-110, wake up on tuesday, and the ravens D is minus 2 points, so now tied up 1110-110....

Any advice on how to handle this....

 

[Chaka]

Decimal scoring.

 

[anakin]

I heard a solution on the radio today. Have the two teams draft three college players that play on Wednesday night bowl game. Best score from that game gets win.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

In another thread someone suggested settling it with the Thursday/Saturday games. Have the two teams pick some players from the game(s) as a "playoff" and whoever wins goes to the championship. That way the other winner knows their opponent ahead of time and the issue is settled in a fair way using fantasy football.

 

[Nate]

Decimal scoring.

This is the answer - go back and calculate the score with decimal scoring.

 

[NoCheese]

The way our league handles tiebreakers is: 1) most total TD's in a team's starting lineup (it's TD heavy) 2) highest scoring player in your starting lineup 3) second highest scoring player in a starting lineup......and so on until the tie is broken. Bench points for a tiebreaker is a joke. Decimal scoring is better, but still not optimal. I kind of like the Thursday/Saturday game idea, and the college idea is fun but letting a non-NFL related game affect the outcome seems a bit weird to me.

 

[Smack Tripper]

I like the decimal scoring option, but otherwise its a coin flip, its as fair as anything.

 

[SieteCinco]

Same thing just happened to me this weekend and the system went with who had the highest win percentage between those opponents throughout the year. I'm thinking one of the following would work well:

-Seeding/Ranking or higher points from the season.

-Add up point totals from the teams three highest bench players.

To avoid future problems, I would go with:

-Teams select one bench player before the week incase of a tie.

-Decimal scoring systems make a tie very unlikely... although I had a game week 1 this year in another league where I originally lost 140.25-140.27, until stat corrections awarded me +1 because of a GB sack. Thinking that will be the closest I ever come to having a tie in a decimal scoring league!

 

[kardplayer]

My leagues use the higher seed gets the tiebreaker. But we voted on that before the season and it's too late for you to do that now.

If I were in this situation, I'd go to decimal scoring first, coin toss second.

 

[GreenMachine51]

With no tiebreaking rule, have a three-way championship game. Highest scoring of the three teams wins. And then in the off-season come up with something.

 

[gregjcross]

Hey all...looking for a bit of help....The worst case scenario has happened for my 4 yr old keeper. Two teams tied in the playoffs. Winner should have gone to the finals. Long story short, last year we all selected a bench player to be used as a tie breaker. This season, for one reason or another, no tie breakers were set, and no players were selected. So....Go to bed on monday, and One team is up 112-110, wake up on tuesday, and the ravens D is minus 2 points, so now tied up 1110-110....Any advice on how to handle this....

yes, just add yards for each team, whoever had more overall yards, wins.

 

[MIMN]

I like the decimal scoring option, but otherwise its a coin flip, its as fair as anything.

This is the best way to handle it in my opinion. Decimal then coin flip.

 

[plastik]

Decimal scoring.

This is the answer - go back and calculate the score with decimal scoring.

I agree here. Non-decimal scoring is really just an inaccurate score and I'd guess that a more accurate score would solve your problem.

 

[two_dollars]

With no tiebreaking rule, have a three-way championship game. Highest scoring of the three teams wins. And then in the off-season come up with something.

That's not fair to the guy who now has to beat 2 teams instead of 1.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

They play head to head again this week - but also play against their real opponent. All 3 teams can submit two lineups (if they are anal about trying to have a different lineup depending on who they play). Each of the play in teams turn in a lineup against each other and a lineup against the team already in the next game. The team already in the next game turns in a linuep set against Team A and a lineup set against Team B.

 

[Kenny Powers]

So....Go to bed on monday, and One team is up 112-110, wake up on tuesday, and the ravens D is minus 2 points, so now tied up 1110-110....

Any advice on how to handle this....

Yeah, so thats actually a big loss, not a tie.But go to decimal scoring if you can. I dont see why every league hasnt gone to this. I realized in my 3rd year of FF that its dumb if a guy gets 79yds but you only get 7 and not 7.9, and I was only 14yrs old back then. Switch to decimals. Or watch Office Space and realize how much you lose by rounding down.

 

[CamelGod]

We do higher seed gets the tiebreak in the playoffs. We actually had our champ two years ago who tied both his Semi-Finals AND his Finals, but because he started as the #1 seed, he won. Not a particularly pretty way to win, but it's effective.

 

[bigpelly8]

Thanks guys....I dont envy the commish having to make the hard choice, but I pitched all these to him. The decimal scoring makes the most sense, and in doing that would give us a clear cut winner. Aside from that, I agree a coin flip. He is talking about making it combined playoff point total, but to me that rewards one good week for the 5-8 win team that snuck in the playoffs, and penalizes the 8-5 team, and doesnt take into account total points, division record, etc...all things the 8-5 team have in their favor.

 

[SWC]

our league would probably resort to greco roman wrestling match like in 300 because when it comes to football leagues ths is madness no our league is SPARTA but you sallies should probaly just stick to having a 1 2 3 4 i declare a thumb war to determine your champion so hey good luck with that

 

[flc735]

you cant create a tiebreak based off points now since that is already established

team A wins on decimal scoring

team B wins of highest scoring starter

if you go decimal, team B is pissed and vice versa

coin flip is fair

or use week 17 as the tie break

---team A and team B are tied. team C is the championship opponent

skip ahead to week 17. team A and team B play each other. team A wins

we go back to week 16 and who ever is the highest scorer in week 16 between team C and the winner of week 17 (team A in this case) wins the championship

 

[Utter Chaos]

Split the prize money in half and have two Championship games.

Say Team Z won his matchup and Teams A and B tied. Team Z shouldn't have to beat A AND B this week (and by having A and B play this week with the highest score declaring last week's winner is the same thing).

So Game 1 (for half of the 1st and 2nd place money): Team Z vs Team A. If there's a consolation game then Team Y will play Team B for half of the 3rd and 4th place money.

In Game 2 (for the other half of the 1st and 2nd place money): Team Z vs Team B.....yada, yada, yada.

That way since Team A and B didn't win their game outright then the best they can do is 1/2 x FirstPlace$ + 1/2 x ThirdPlace$.

Team Z will be guaranteed at least 2nd Place $ and could win all of the First Place $ or half of first and half of second.

Adding something like decimal scoring would be good going forward but since their wasn't a tie breaker in place before the game you really can't use decimal scoring as a tie-breaker now.

 

[Chaka]

our league would probably resort to greco roman wrestling match like in 300 because when it comes to football leagues ths is madness no our league is SPARTA but you sallies should probaly just stick to having a 1 2 3 4 i declare a thumb war to determine your champion so hey good luck with that

Gee the thought of emulating the most homoerotic sport ever invented, as depicted in the most homoerotic film ever made never occurred to me.

 

[renesauz]

If either team is the commissioner's...HE LOSES.

Seriously, with whole number scoring not having tie-breaker rules in place is a GIGANTIC FAIL on his part.

 

[QuizGuy66]

In both leagues I'm in the higher seed advances. Really think it's the only way to go.

Need to have a thread on this topic pinned in August reminding and exhorting everyone to get this mattered settled before their seasons start.

-QG

 

[GoRaiders]

decimal scoring, and make it decimal scoring going forward for all games so you won't have a tie in the future.

 

[spodog]

So....Go to bed on monday, and One team is up 112-110, wake up on tuesday, and the ravens D is minus 2 points, so now tied up 1110-110....Any advice on how to handle this....

Seems that the guy with 1,110 points wins by 1,000.

 

[spodog]

They play head to head again this week - but also play against their real opponent. All 3 teams can submit two lineups (if they are anal about trying to have a different lineup depending on who they play). Each of the play in teams turn in a lineup against each other and a lineup against the team already in the next game. The team already in the next game turns in a linuep set against Team A and a lineup set against Team B.

No, this blows if you're the team on the other side of the bracket, because now you are forced to beat out TWO teams to take the championship simply because of a lack of foresight on the part of the commish ?

 

[Ranger1]

With no tiebreaking rule, have a three-way championship game. Highest scoring of the three teams wins. And then in the off-season come up with something.

That's not fair to the guy who now has to beat 2 teams instead of 1.

 

[Utter Chaos]

Split the prize money in half and have two Championship games.

Say Team Z won his matchup and Teams A and B tied. Team Z shouldn't have to beat A AND B this week (and by having A and B play this week with the highest score declaring last week's winner is the same thing).

So Game 1 (for half of the 1st and 2nd place money): Team Z vs Team A. If there's a consolation game then Team Y will play Team B for half of the 3rd and 4th place money.

In Game 2 (for the other half of the 1st and 2nd place money): Team Z vs Team B.....yada, yada, yada.

That way since Team A and B didn't win their game outright then the best they can do is 1/2 x FirstPlace$ + 1/2 x ThirdPlace$.

Team Z will be guaranteed at least 2nd Place $ and could win all of the First Place $ or half of first and half of second.

Adding something like decimal scoring would be good going forward but since their wasn't a tie breaker in place before the game you really can't use decimal scoring as a tie-breaker now.

I've posted the above suggestion in a couple of threads where there was a tie in the playoffs with no tie breaker specified. Nobody has commented good or bad. I'd be curious to hear what others think. In my opionion it's much better than a coin flip. I'd rather have a chance to get a share of the title than to have no chance because a quarter landed on tails. While decimal scoring reduces the chance of a tie it does not completely eliminate the chance.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Split the prize money in half and have two Championship games.

Say Team Z won his matchup and Teams A and B tied. Team Z shouldn't have to beat A AND B this week (and by having A and B play this week with the highest score declaring last week's winner is the same thing).

So Game 1 (for half of the 1st and 2nd place money): Team Z vs Team A. If there's a consolation game then Team Y will play Team B for half of the 3rd and 4th place money.

In Game 2 (for the other half of the 1st and 2nd place money): Team Z vs Team B.....yada, yada, yada.

That way since Team A and B didn't win their game outright then the best they can do is 1/2 x FirstPlace$ + 1/2 x ThirdPlace$.

Team Z will be guaranteed at least 2nd Place $ and could win all of the First Place $ or half of first and half of second.

Adding something like decimal scoring would be good going forward but since their wasn't a tie breaker in place before the game you really can't use decimal scoring as a tie-breaker now.

I've posted the above suggestion in a couple of threads where there was a tie in the playoffs with no tie breaker specified. Nobody has commented good or bad. I'd be curious to hear what others think. In my opionion it's much better than a coin flip. I'd rather have a chance to get a share of the title than to have no chance because a quarter landed on tails. While decimal scoring reduces the chance of a tie it does not completely eliminate the chance.

That's not fair to team Z. He has the right to face one opponent next week, and be awarded the whole 1st place prize if he wins.You need to break the tie now, you can't advance both teams in any kind of three-way, split head-to-head, whatever. Decimal scoring is the most equitable way to do it at this point, and a more robust set of tiebreakers should be put together that will apply going forward.

 

[toxic]

If no rule is set on how to break ties, there is absolutely no new tie-breaker that can be implemented now that is fair. This thread has already generated a host of perfectly reasonable tie-breakers that could be used IF set in advance. However, implementing any of them now arbitrarily selects one team over the other. Frankly, the only real solution is a coin-flip.

 

[Dez]

How do these things happen year after year ?

Every league should have had a playoff tie breaking system put in before the season even started.

Seriously I can't see how this could not have taken place ?

We see this same thread year after year.

 

[Pura Vida]

With no tiebreaking rule, have a three-way championship game. Highest scoring of the three teams wins. And then in the off-season come up with something.

This is not fair to the third team as he now has to beat two teams.

 

[Perfect Tommy]

If no rule is set on how to break ties, there is absolutely no new tie-breaker that can be implemented now that is fair. This thread has already generated a host of perfectly reasonable tie-breakers that could be used IF set in advance. However, implementing any of them now arbitrarily selects one team over the other. Frankly, the only real solution is a coin-flip.

It would be awful to decide on the "fair" tiebreak now. Since the information about who won is already available, that would simply be choosing the winner. A coin flip is necessary. Utterchaos's idea works out mathematically, but then you might not get any champion. Who wants Schroedinger's champ?For the future, of course tiebreaks must be determined. It doesn't even matter which system you use. Even a coin flip. As long as the rules are clear, there is no problem.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

They play head to head again this week - but also play against their real opponent. All 3 teams can submit two lineups (if they are anal about trying to have a different lineup depending on who they play). Each of the play in teams turn in a lineup against each other and a lineup against the team already in the next game. The team already in the next game turns in a linuep set against Team A and a lineup set against Team B.

No, this blows if you're the team on the other side of the bracket, because now you are forced to beat out TWO teams to take the championship simply because of a lack of foresight on the part of the commish ?

No it doesn't but since you are so opposed, I suggest a duel at ten paces. Also lineup a new owner for next year.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

They play head to head again this week - but also play against their real opponent. All 3 teams can submit two lineups (if they are anal about trying to have a different lineup depending on who they play). Each of the play in teams turn in a lineup against each other and a lineup against the team already in the next game. The team already in the next game turns in a linuep set against Team A and a lineup set against Team B.

No, this blows if you're the team on the other side of the bracket, because now you are forced to beat out TWO teams to take the championship simply because of a lack of foresight on the part of the commish ?

No it doesn't but since you are so opposed, I suggest a duel at ten paces. Also lineup a new owner for next year.

Yes it does. There's no way the team already in the next game can win unless he outscores both Teams A and B.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

They play head to head again this week - but also play against their real opponent. All 3 teams can submit two lineups (if they are anal about trying to have a different lineup depending on who they play). Each of the play in teams turn in a lineup against each other and a lineup against the team already in the next game. The team already in the next game turns in a linuep set against Team A and a lineup set against Team B.

No, this blows if you're the team on the other side of the bracket, because now you are forced to beat out TWO teams to take the championship simply because of a lack of foresight on the part of the commish ?

No it doesn't but since you are so opposed, I suggest a duel at ten paces. Also lineup a new owner for next year.

Yes it does. There's no way the team already in the next game can win unless he outscores both Teams A and B.

How does who he plays make a diference with what he scores? Will his lineup play harder against one opponent as opposed to the other?In this scenario - admittedly a screwed up scenario that should have been accounted for - it seems the only fair thing to the teams that tied. The other team is already in the money. At worst he loses to A or B and still gets 2nd place money...loser of A v B at best gets 3rd.I agree it shouldn't come down to this, but as opposed to such other wonderful ideas as a coin flip or use week 17 as a tiebreaker then retroactively figure out winners....the idea is more solid.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

How does who he plays make a diference with what he scores? Will his lineup play harder against one opponent as opposed to the other?

In this scenario - admittedly a screwed up scenario that should have been accounted for - it seems the only fair thing to the teams that tied. The other team is already in the money. At worst he loses to A or B and still gets 2nd place money...loser of A v B at best gets 3rd.

I agree it shouldn't come down to this, but as opposed to such other wonderful ideas as a coin flip or use week 17 as a tiebreaker then retroactively figure out winners....the idea is more solid.

You're not understanding. In your system, in order for Owner C (the guy who already won his matchup and is waiting in the championship round) to win 1st place, he needs to score more points than both Owner A and Owner B. That's not fair to Owner C. He is only supposed to be facing a single opponent. Which opponent he faces needs to be determined by a tiebreaker, independently of and prior to the championship game. Using decimal scoring to break the tie is a perfectly equitable solution - it's not like Owners A and B would have set their lineups any differently if they had known such a tiebreaker was going to be used ahead of time, and it measures exactly what they thought they'd be measured on, just with more precision.

 

[Perfect Tommy]

How does who he plays make a diference with what he scores? Will his lineup play harder against one opponent as opposed to the other?

In this scenario - admittedly a screwed up scenario that should have been accounted for - it seems the only fair thing to the teams that tied. The other team is already in the money. At worst he loses to A or B and still gets 2nd place money...loser of A v B at best gets 3rd.

I agree it shouldn't come down to this, but as opposed to such other wonderful ideas as a coin flip or use week 17 as a tiebreaker then retroactively figure out winners....the idea is more solid.

You're not understanding. In your system, in order for Owner C (the guy who already won his matchup and is waiting in the championship round) to win 1st place, he needs to score more points than both Owner A and Owner B. That's not fair to Owner C. He is only supposed to be facing a single opponent. Which opponent he faces needs to be determined by a tiebreaker, independently of and prior to the championship game. Using decimal scoring to break the tie is a perfectly equitable solution - it's not like Owners A and B would have set their lineups any differently if they had known such a tiebreaker was going to be used ahead of time, and it measures exactly what they thought they'd be measured on, just with more precision.

Using decimal scoring AFTER they play is just a way of the commissioner choosing the champion. Why not say the higher seed wins? Or the team with the highest scoring player wins? Or the team with the highest scoring bench player wins? Or the team with the highest scoring QB wins? Or the team with the highest scoring total bench wins? Or any number of other ways we can imagine. They are all fair and equitable if the rules are set beforehand. But AFTER they already played, any one of these tiebreaks would be the commish choosing the winner. Nothing could be less fair.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

How does who he plays make a diference with what he scores? Will his lineup play harder against one opponent as opposed to the other?

In this scenario - admittedly a screwed up scenario that should have been accounted for - it seems the only fair thing to the teams that tied. The other team is already in the money. At worst he loses to A or B and still gets 2nd place money...loser of A v B at best gets 3rd.

I agree it shouldn't come down to this, but as opposed to such other wonderful ideas as a coin flip or use week 17 as a tiebreaker then retroactively figure out winners....the idea is more solid.

You're not understanding. In your system, in order for Owner C (the guy who already won his matchup and is waiting in the championship round) to win 1st place, he needs to score more points than both Owner A and Owner B. That's not fair to Owner C. He is only supposed to be facing a single opponent. Which opponent he faces needs to be determined by a tiebreaker, independently of and prior to the championship game. Using decimal scoring to break the tie is a perfectly equitable solution - it's not like Owners A and B would have set their lineups any differently if they had known such a tiebreaker was going to be used ahead of time, and it measures exactly what they thought they'd be measured on, just with more precision.

Using decimal scoring AFTER they play is just a way of the commissioner choosing the champion. Why not say the higher seed wins? Or the team with the highest scoring player wins? Or the team with the highest scoring bench player wins? Or the team with the highest scoring QB wins? Or the team with the highest scoring total bench wins? Or any number of other ways we can imagine. They are all fair and equitable if the rules are set beforehand. But AFTER they already played, any one of these tiebreaks would be the commish choosing the winner. Nothing could be less fair.

Lots of things could be less fair. The fact is that some kind of tiebreaker needs to be applied at this point. You can bemoan the fact that tiebreakers weren't in place beforehand, but that's just crying over spilled milk. Decimal scoring is as close to a perfect tiebreaker as you're going to get in this instance, because it's rewarding the owners for exactly what they thought they'd be rewarded for - the total quantity of fantasy stats their starting lineup produced. It's just measuring them to greater precision, which no one should take issue with. They wouldn't have managed anything any differently had they known this tiebreaker was going to be used ahead of time. It's vastly superior to something completely arbitrary like a coin flip, or something like bench points (which owners might have prepared for differently if they'd known it would be used as a tiebreaker), or a three-headed championship game (which screws the third guy who already won his matchup), or any of the other tiebreakers you proposed. The commissioner isn't "choosing" the champion - he's awarding the win to the team whose starting lineup amassed the most fantasy stats, which is exactly what was supposed to happen.

 

[flc735]

you cant have a 3 way championship

that gives team z a 33% chance at winning rather than a 50% chance

you cant establish a long term rule to apply it to this game

whats a better tie breaker: decimal scoring or higher seed? head to head record or total points? best bench player or best starting player???

the answer is its a matter of opinion. no answer is wrong but you can't apply it to the past because unless team A wins all 6 of those tie breakers, you are in effect choosing the winner. team A will be against any of those choices that would make him loose and the same goes for team B

a coin flip is the only way to do this

unless you can somehow get the two owners to agree on a tiebreaker but that is basically asking one of those teams to accept the loss. that's not going to happen

 

[flc735]

Lots of things could be less fair. The fact is that some kind of tiebreaker needs to be applied at this point. You can bemoan the fact that tiebreakers weren't in place beforehand, but that's just crying over spilled milk. Decimal scoring is as close to a perfect tiebreaker as you're going to get in this instance, because it's rewarding the owners for exactly what they thought they'd be rewarded for - the total quantity of fantasy stats their starting lineup produced. It's just measuring them to greater precision, which no one should take issue with. They wouldn't have managed anything any differently had they known this tiebreaker was going to be used ahead of time. It's vastly superior to something completely arbitrary like a coin flip, or something like bench points (which owners might have prepared for differently if they'd known it would be used as a tiebreaker), or a three-headed championship game (which screws the third guy who already won his matchup), or any of the other tiebreakers you proposed. The commissioner isn't "choosing" the champion - he's awarding the win to the team whose starting lineup amassed the most fantasy stats, which is exactly what was supposed to happen.

say you are team A. you have a better head to head record against team B, you are the higher seed, better record, better division and conference record, higher scoring starter, higher scoring bench player, more total points scored

but you loose if they implement decimal scoring as a tie breaker.

are you okay with that?

 

[Utter Chaos]

you cant have a 3 way championship

that gives team z a 33% chance at winning rather than a 50% chance

you cant establish a long term rule to apply it to this game

whats a better tie breaker: decimal scoring or higher seed? head to head record or total points? best bench player or best starting player???

the answer is its a matter of opinion. no answer is wrong but you can't apply it to the past because unless team A wins all 6 of those tie breakers, you are in effect choosing the winner. team A will be against any of those choices that would make him loose and the same goes for team B

a coin flip is the only way to do this

unless you can somehow get the two owners to agree on a tiebreaker but that is basically asking one of those teams to accept the loss. that's not going to happen

A coin flip is not a good solution. How do they decide who gets to call it? What if the people live in different states? Would they flip it over the phone? I wouldn't want to do that if I was one of the guys tied.In this thread there's been many tie breaker suggestions, all which can be considered for NEXT YEAR but shouldn't be applied this year because it's after the fact. Say Team A was the higher seed, had more bench points, had the highest scoring player, had more total points during the season, and beat Team B during the season but Team B has 0.1 more points doing decimal scoring and that was decided by the commish to be the tie-breaker. I'd be pissed if I was Team A.

Suppose some random tie-breaker is used and Team B advances. Team Z then loses to Team B in the championship but would have beaten Team A. Is that really fair to Team Z?

I still think the best way is to split up the prize money in half and have two championships. Team Z vs Team A and Team Z vs Team B. If Team Z beats them both he's the undisputed champion. If he splits or loses both games then you have co-champs.

Doing it this way does not penalize Teams A and B by some tie-breaker created after the fact when none was in place. It gives each of them a shot of 1/2 the first place money which is better then no shot at all. It guarantees Team Z at least 2nd place with a chance to win half or all of first place.

I think that's a fair compromise that doesn't grossly reward or penalize any of the teams more than the others.

 

[Pack43]

Lots of things could be less fair. The fact is that some kind of tiebreaker needs to be applied at this point. You can bemoan the fact that tiebreakers weren't in place beforehand, but that's just crying over spilled milk. Decimal scoring is as close to a perfect tiebreaker as you're going to get in this instance, because it's rewarding the owners for exactly what they thought they'd be rewarded for - the total quantity of fantasy stats their starting lineup produced. It's just measuring them to greater precision, which no one should take issue with. They wouldn't have managed anything any differently had they known this tiebreaker was going to be used ahead of time. It's vastly superior to something completely arbitrary like a coin flip, or something like bench points (which owners might have prepared for differently if they'd known it would be used as a tiebreaker), or a three-headed championship game (which screws the third guy who already won his matchup), or any of the other tiebreakers you proposed. The commissioner isn't "choosing" the champion - he's awarding the win to the team whose starting lineup amassed the most fantasy stats, which is exactly what was supposed to happen.

say you are team A. you have a better head to head record against team B, you are the higher seed, better record, better division and conference record, higher scoring starter, higher scoring bench player, more total points scored

but you loose if they implement decimal scoring as a tie breaker.

are you okay with that?

Yes, because I scored fewer points in the head-to-head playoff game. Without a tie-breaker rule already in place, I think that's the best you can do. Measure the actual game to the most precision if that breaks the tie.

 

[Utter Chaos]

Lots of things could be less fair. The fact is that some kind of tiebreaker needs to be applied at this point. You can bemoan the fact that tiebreakers weren't in place beforehand, but that's just crying over spilled milk. Decimal scoring is as close to a perfect tiebreaker as you're going to get in this instance, because it's rewarding the owners for exactly what they thought they'd be rewarded for - the total quantity of fantasy stats their starting lineup produced. It's just measuring them to greater precision, which no one should take issue with. They wouldn't have managed anything any differently had they known this tiebreaker was going to be used ahead of time. It's vastly superior to something completely arbitrary like a coin flip, or something like bench points (which owners might have prepared for differently if they'd known it would be used as a tiebreaker), or a three-headed championship game (which screws the third guy who already won his matchup), or any of the other tiebreakers you proposed. The commissioner isn't "choosing" the champion - he's awarding the win to the team whose starting lineup amassed the most fantasy stats, which is exactly what was supposed to happen.

say you are team A. you have a better head to head record against team B, you are the higher seed, better record, better division and conference record, higher scoring starter, higher scoring bench player, more total points scored

but you loose if they implement decimal scoring as a tie breaker.

are you okay with that?

Yes, because I scored fewer points in the head-to-head playoff game. Without a tie-breaker rule already in place, I think that's the best you can do. Measure the actual game to the most precision if that breaks the tie.

Then what happens if they're still tied after decimal scoring?

 

[Pack43]

Lots of things could be less fair. The fact is that some kind of tiebreaker needs to be applied at this point. You can bemoan the fact that tiebreakers weren't in place beforehand, but that's just crying over spilled milk. Decimal scoring is as close to a perfect tiebreaker as you're going to get in this instance, because it's rewarding the owners for exactly what they thought they'd be rewarded for - the total quantity of fantasy stats their starting lineup produced. It's just measuring them to greater precision, which no one should take issue with. They wouldn't have managed anything any differently had they known this tiebreaker was going to be used ahead of time. It's vastly superior to something completely arbitrary like a coin flip, or something like bench points (which owners might have prepared for differently if they'd known it would be used as a tiebreaker), or a three-headed championship game (which screws the third guy who already won his matchup), or any of the other tiebreakers you proposed. The commissioner isn't "choosing" the champion - he's awarding the win to the team whose starting lineup amassed the most fantasy stats, which is exactly what was supposed to happen.

say you are team A. you have a better head to head record against team B, you are the higher seed, better record, better division and conference record, higher scoring starter, higher scoring bench player, more total points scored

but you loose if they implement decimal scoring as a tie breaker.

are you okay with that?

Yes, because I scored fewer points in the head-to-head playoff game. Without a tie-breaker rule already in place, I think that's the best you can do. Measure the actual game to the most precision if that breaks the tie.

Then what happens if they're still tied after decimal scoring?

I don't know. That's a tougher question to me as you're implementing a new rule and no longer relying on the current scoring rules just measured to more precision.

 

[flc735]

Yes, because I scored fewer points in the head-to-head playoff game. Without a tie-breaker rule already in place, I think that's the best you can do. Measure the actual game to the most precision if that breaks the tie.

best case scenario, both owners agree on a points based tie breaker. if the loosing owner actually OKs it, then great, problem solved. i know i wouldn't be okay with that outcome and i assume the real loosing owner would not be eitheras a commissioner, i wouldn't be okay in implementing a pionts based tie breaker onto a previous game if one of the owners was not okay with it

 

[Pack43]

Yes, because I scored fewer points in the head-to-head playoff game. Without a tie-breaker rule already in place, I think that's the best you can do. Measure the actual game to the most precision if that breaks the tie.

best case scenario, both owners agree on a points based tie breaker. if the loosing owner actually OKs it, then great, problem solved. i know i wouldn't be okay with that outcome and i assume the real loosing owner would not be eitheras a commissioner, i wouldn't be okay in implementing a pionts based tie breaker onto a previous game if one of the owners was not okay with it

May be down to a random tie breaker like a coin flip then. That's the only thing I would blindly agree to other than maximum precision of the current game. We currently have this situation in one of my leagues and the commish hasn't chimed in. I'm the championship game opponent so I don't really have a strong opinion other than it has to be resolved completely independent of this week's game.

 

[flc735]

Suppose some random tie-breaker is used and Team B advances. Team Z then loses to Team B in the championship but would have beaten Team A. Is that really fair to Team Z?

yes that is completely fair to all 3 teams because it is within the spirit of the single game elimination format.team Z has earned a 50% chance at the championship and 50% at 2nd place.

as long as you you give him his head to head matchup (50% chance at 1st, 50% chance at 2nd, 0% chance at anything else) then that is fair. i am facing the lowest point scorer of the playoff teams in my championship. if he lost the last game, i would be playing the highest point scorer. either outcome would have been fair from everyones point of view

I still think the best way is to split up the prize money in half and have two championships. Team Z vs Team A and Team Z vs Team B. If Team Z beats them both he's the undisputed champion. If he splits or loses both games then you have co-champs.

Doing it this way does not penalize Teams A and B by some tie-breaker created after the fact when none was in place. It gives each of them a shot of 1/2 the first place money which is better then no shot at all. It guarantees Team Z at least 2nd place with a chance to win half or all of first place.

I think that's a fair compromise that doesn't grossly reward or penalize any of the teams more than the others.

this is fair to team A and B but unfair to team Z and here is why...lets say 1st is $300, 2nd is $100, 3rd is $0

team Z: has already earned $100 for 2nd place, worse case scenario for him in either a normal head to head matchup, or your scenario

$100+...

Z beats A and B: .5*.5 = 25% at $200 = $50 expected dollars for team Z

Z beats A, looses B: 25% at $100 = $25 expected dollars for team Z

Z looses A, wins B: 25% at $100 = $25 expected dollars for team Z

Z looses A, looses B: 25% at $0 = $0 expected dollars for team Z

$100+(50+25+25+0) = $200 expected dollars for team Z

in a normal head to head matchup

Z beats A: $100 + (50% at $200) = $200 expected dollars for team Z

Z looses A: $100 + (50% at $0) = $100 expected dollars for team Z

$200+100 = $300 expected dollars for team Z. anything less is penalizing team Z

team Zs expected earnings decrease by 33% in your scenario

**there is one way this scenario is fair though.

If and only if 2nd place is exactly half of what 1st place, or zero is AND 3rd place is half of what 2nd place is or zero

ex:

400, 200, 0

400, 200, 100

400, 0, 0

 

[flc735]

im saying the coin flip is the only right way to do this

if owners are weary of a coin flip, thats no problem. any 50-50 chance game will do

have each owner email you a rock, paper or scissor

do the dice rolling thing, highest score wins

pick a number 1 or 2, e-mail it to another guy in the league with timestamp. both owners pick a number and posts it on the message board

edit to add to coin flip:

a 50-50 chance is not the bad way to go

even if you go decimal scoring, the ref misspotted the ball and 'mendy' gets credited for a 4 yard gain rather than a 3. he totals 83 yards instead of 82. the same situation could have easily happened to 'mjd' on the other guys team. its 50-50

at least with the coin flip, you don't have to get an owner to agree to a predetermined loss