That's what we'd do.People will suggest a three-way final, but don't let anyone talk you into that. It's not fair to the winner of the other semi.Higher seed.
What if it's a head-to-head league, where the number one tie-breaker is head-to-head record and the second tie-breaker is total points. In this case, the one team was the #2 seed based on a 2-0 record against the #3 seed. However, the #3 seed had more overall points. They are the two teams who tied this week. Who advances?total points. More points=better team=advances
We have teams list three bench players in a #1, #2, #3 order, in the event of a tie we go to the listed #1 reserve, if still tied we go to #2, and if necessary #3, if still tied we go to total bench points. This happened this week as I tied my opponent in the semi's and we went to top reserve we had listed, I had listed Cassel as my #1 reserve and he had Bulger, needless to say I'm loving the results and am back in the big game.What are your leagues' tiebreakers in the case of a playoff tie?
We do the same. This is really the way to go.We have teams list three bench players in a #1, #2, #3 order, in the event of a tie we go to the listed #1 reserve, if still tied we go to #2, and if necessary #3, if still tied we go to total bench points. This happened this week as I tied my opponent in the semi's and we went to top reserve we had listed, I had listed Cassel as my #1 reserve and he had Bulger, needless to say I'm loving the results and am back in the big game.What are your leagues' tiebreakers in the case of a playoff tie?
Do it how you like, but I've always hated the justifications of X way of scoring 20 pts is better than Y. In your case, 127 empty yards has a worse chance of helping their team win, since they couldn't put points on the board. Arguments are equal both ways.We do total offensive yards by starting roster. I think it is a very good way to settle a tie. Touchdowns can inflate points. A player with 2 yards rushing and 2 TDS has the same point value as a player with 127 yards rushing. So awarding the guy who's players actually had better stats, not just a product of luck, is the way to go.
So you already have a rule that states head-to-head record takes it? Then why the question? Go by the rulesJuniorNB said:What if it's a head-to-head league, where the number one tie-breaker is head-to-head record and the second tie-breaker is total points. In this case, the one team was the #2 seed based on a 2-0 record against the #3 seed. However, the #3 seed had more overall points. They are the two teams who tied this week. Who advances?Franknbeans said:total points. More points=better team=advances
I think it is CRAZY to use bench points in any way to break ties. Depending on my strategy (handcuffs, etc.) I may have a TERRIBLE bench total. Bench points should never have a bearing on a game, playoff or otherwise.That said... we do total TDs by starters then total yards by starters. (And I agree with Twilight that those could be flip-flopped depending on your philosophy)We use total TD's scored from the starting lineup.
Those tie-breakers are for the regular season. You're right, I suppose we could carry them over, but I'm just preparing for the backlash.So you already have a rule that states head-to-head record takes it? Then why the question? Go by the rulesJuniorNB said:What if it's a head-to-head league, where the number one tie-breaker is head-to-head record and the second tie-breaker is total points. In this case, the one team was the #2 seed based on a 2-0 record against the #3 seed. However, the #3 seed had more overall points. They are the two teams who tied this week. Who advances?Franknbeans said:total points. More points=better team=advances
ETA: The 'higher seed' tiebreaker seems ridiculous to me.Mr. Pink said:We do the same. This is really the way to go.LionsPride said:We have teams list three bench players in a #1, #2, #3 order, in the event of a tie we go to the listed #1 reserve, if still tied we go to #2, and if necessary #3, if still tied we go to total bench points.JuniorNB said:What are your leagues' tiebreakers in the case of a playoff tie?
since we are talking "after the fact", i think bench players is a horrible suggestion ... since as TJ-Raider already said, your bench could be comprised mostly of handcuffs and had you known that bench players was a tiebreaker you would have planned differently ... so not knowing it ahead of time to me doesn't prove Team A was better than Team B b/c he had some bench players do welldecimal scoring is the way to go here unless the league already uses itETA: The 'higher seed' tiebreaker seems ridiculous to me.Mr. Pink said:We do the same. This is really the way to go.LionsPride said:We have teams list three bench players in a #1, #2, #3 order, in the event of a tie we go to the listed #1 reserve, if still tied we go to #2, and if necessary #3, if still tied we go to total bench points.JuniorNB said:What are your leagues' tiebreakers in the case of a playoff tie?
In lieu of another rule specifically designed for the playoffs, it seems like you have to go with it. What's the alternative? Proposing a different rule for the playoffs? That should incite just as much backlash, no?Those tie-breakers are for the regular season. You're right, I suppose we could carry them over, but I'm just preparing for the backlash.So you already have a rule that states head-to-head record takes it? Then why the question? Go by the rulesJuniorNB said:What if it's a head-to-head league, where the number one tie-breaker is head-to-head record and the second tie-breaker is total points. In this case, the one team was the #2 seed based on a 2-0 record against the #3 seed. However, the #3 seed had more overall points. They are the two teams who tied this week. Who advances?Franknbeans said:total points. More points=better team=advances
if the league already has decimal scoring, then i think this is probably the way to go ... if it doesn't , i think this method would be an absolute stretch of the rules and using it is not akin to "just following the rules" since this is meant only for seeding teams and not for determining the outcome of an actual gameIn lieu of another rule specifically designed for the playoffs, it seems like you have to go with it. What's the alternative? Proposing a different rule for the playoffs? That should incite just as much backlash, no?Those tie-breakers are for the regular season. You're right, I suppose we could carry them over, but I'm just preparing for the backlash.So you already have a rule that states head-to-head record takes it? Then why the question? Go by the rulesJuniorNB said:What if it's a head-to-head league, where the number one tie-breaker is head-to-head record and the second tie-breaker is total points. In this case, the one team was the #2 seed based on a 2-0 record against the #3 seed. However, the #3 seed had more overall points. They are the two teams who tied this week. Who advances?Franknbeans said:total points. More points=better team=advances
it should be noted that the OP has yet to confirm whether or not his league uses decimal scoringhonestly, how is decimal scoring NOT the best approach to break this tie (assuming his scoring system is only integer based)? you have a game played already and if you don't have decimal scoring then there is still yardage gained by players on both teams that is currently unjudged ... all you are doing is using the same scoring system the league has already and taking it a step further to go one level deeper ... from a commish's perspective of trying to find a fair, unbiased answer to a big problem, scoring with decimal scoring is the best possible alternativeGoing with the higher seed is the only thing that makes sense to me. The higher seeded team is supposed to be better than the lower-seeded team, and its hard to argue with the better team advancing. Next year, switch to decimal scoring.
We name one "alternate" player from our bench who is used to break a potential tie. If a tiw still exists after that, highest seed advances.JuniorNB said:What are your leagues' tiebreakers in the case of a playoff tie?
Rule #1 as commish ... NEVER put things up for a vote when you are faced with a tough decision.This is YOUR job as commish to rule on this. Just consider both sides of any possible argument of ANY decision you make here and go with the one that seems to be the most fair and unbiased. You already know I feel like decimal scoring is the way to go since it judges the part of the game that was not yet judged. Honestly, it is the most defendable of all possibilities. I think seeding is the least defendable since it is a rule only for determining a standings tie and has NOTHING to do with the week 15 performance of the teams in the game already played. Good luck, but make a decision based on the merits of each possibility and don't put it up for a league vote.The league does not use decimal scoring, although we have begun discussing making the switch next year. (Just for fun, I figured out the scoring with a decimal system and it broke the tie, surprisingly, by a fairly wide margin).The main problem here, is that we've been in existance for a long time (1992) and we rarely even have a tie during the regualr season (probably around 5 in 16 years). In fact, at a pre-draft meeting a year or so ago, someone brought up the possibility of a playoff tie and a lot of suggestions were tossed around, but no concrete rule was ever put in place and it was never discussed again. Mea Culpa, as comissioner).I figured out who wins the tie by every suiggestion in this thread. Decimal, starters TDs, high bench player, total bench score, and seed. The same guy wins every single tie-breaker except one...seed. And that is because he beat teh other guy head-to-head twice during the regular season (which is tie-breaker #1). The lower-seed even had more total points.To make matters worse, I won the other semi-final game, so it will determoine my opponent in teh finals, thus making any decision I make be a conflict of interest.As commisioner, I may just send out a league-wide email and have the other guys (omitting me and the two participants) vote after being presented all the data.What say ye?
Obviously its not constructive and its too late anyway to say "how can you not have a tie breaker in place already?". As commisioner, I think you need to take the high road here and have both teams advance with the highest scoring team next week (of the three) winning the championship. I don't think you can just arbitraily decide on a tie breakere here. With you in the game (as you said) it puts your decision even further under the microscope. It sucks (and is unfair) to you to have to "play against" two teams, but since you screwed up as commish (not having a tie breaker) and with you in the game creating a potential conflict of interest, its the only way to go. Next year come up with a tie breaker.The league does not use decimal scoring, although we have begun discussing making the switch next year. (Just for fun, I figured out the scoring with a decimal system and it broke the tie, surprisingly, by a fairly wide margin).The main problem here, is that we've been in existance for a long time (1992) and we rarely even have a tie during the regualr season (probably around 5 in 16 years). In fact, at a pre-draft meeting a year or so ago, someone brought up the possibility of a playoff tie and a lot of suggestions were tossed around, but no concrete rule was ever put in place and it was never discussed again. Mea Culpa, as comissioner).I figured out who wins the tie by every suiggestion in this thread. Decimal, starters TDs, high bench player, total bench score, and seed. The same guy wins every single tie-breaker except one...seed. And that is because he beat teh other guy head-to-head twice during the regular season (which is tie-breaker #1). The lower-seed even had more total points.To make matters worse, I won the other semi-final game, so it will determoine my opponent in teh finals, thus making any decision I make be a conflict of interest.As commisioner, I may just send out a league-wide email and have the other guys (omitting me and the two participants) vote after being presented all the data.What say ye?
This would be a horrible move as it forced the other team in the championship team to now have to beat TWO teams in the final. This is clearly not a fair decision for the team not involved in the tie. The commish needs to rule here. He needs to decide on ONE team to advance to the final.As commisioner, I think you need to take the high road here and have both teams advance with the highest scoring team next week (of the three) winning the championship.
Exactly. There's way too much money at stake for me to minimize my chances by having to beat two guys instead of one. That ain't happening.As for me being the commissioner, I can assure you that it's not by choice. I'm the only one with enough dedication to run the league. I've been trying to get out of the position for ten years. No one else will step up.I think that allowing the other owners (which will be an odd number) vote on it, it eliminates any conflict-of-interest that I would have.This would be a horrible move as it forced the other team in the championship team to now have to beat TWO teams in the final. This is clearly not a fair decision for the team not involved in the tie. The commish needs to rule here. He needs to decide on ONE team to advance to the final.As commisioner, I think you need to take the high road here and have both teams advance with the highest scoring team next week (of the three) winning the championship.
It doesn't matter why you are commish, but as always commish is a thankless but important job. The fact that you are the finals opponent for the winner of the tiebreaker is not relevant and for Dr. Octopus to act like you need to shoulder the blame here is silly. You and your entire league are equally to blame for the situation you are in, so why should you be punished since it happens to be you in the final against the winner of this tied game?Allowing a vote is not a good resolution b/c people are most often not voting for the best reason, but instead they vote for their friend or against who they don't like and not for the right reasons. The fact that you have been commish for 10 years (and didn't want to ... any everyone knows it) gives you more fuel to defend any decision you make. If you decide on decimal scoring to score the currently unjudged yardage of the game then you can tell anyone who opposes that move to show you why it is not the most fair and unbiased move here (since the decision should be made strictly on week 15 performance of the teams and not something that took place during the regular season) and that he can be commish next year.Exactly. There's way too much money at stake for me to minimize my chances by having to beat two guys instead of one. That ain't happening.As for me being the commissioner, I can assure you that it's not by choice. I'm the only one with enough dedication to run the league. I've been trying to get out of the position for ten years. No one else will step up.I think that allowing the other owners (which will be an odd number) vote on it, it eliminates any conflict-of-interest that I would have.This would be a horrible move as it forced the other team in the championship team to now have to beat TWO teams in the final. This is clearly not a fair decision for the team not involved in the tie. The commish needs to rule here. He needs to decide on ONE team to advance to the final.As commisioner, I think you need to take the high road here and have both teams advance with the highest scoring team next week (of the three) winning the championship.
I disagree, one team can earn a higher seed based on having terrible division competition (think Seattle Seahawks for the past 5 years) versus a team with 1-2 less wins but has faced far tougher competition. To me, seeding is already given enough credence simply by the awarding of byes. To also allow seeding an automatic tiebreak seems over the top.We do highest scoring bench player. I'm not in love with the system but of the methods I've considered I think this one is the least offensive option. We start IDP's so if the 15 guys that started don't settle the game each team then goes down to it's best reserve. I can see the arguments against this as it's an awful way to lose (and win) but I haven't seen anything better I like.Going with the higher seed is the only thing that makes sense to me. The higher seeded team is supposed to be better than the lower-seeded team, and its hard to argue with the better team advancing. Next year, switch to decimal scoring.
So making up a tie breaking rule after the fact, is fair to the other two teams?It doesn't matter why you are commish, but as always commish is a thankless but important job. The fact that you are the finals opponent for the winner of the tiebreaker is not relevant and for Dr. Octopus to act like you need to shoulder the blame here is silly. You and your entire league are equally to blame for the situation you are in, so why should you be punished since it happens to be you in the final against the winner of this tied game?Allowing a vote is not a good resolution b/c people are most often not voting for the best reason, but instead they vote for their friend or against who they don't like and not for the right reasons. The fact that you have been commish for 10 years (and didn't want to ... any everyone knows it) gives you more fuel to defend any decision you make. If you decide on decimal scoring to score the currently unjudged yardage of the game then you can tell anyone who opposes that move to show you why it is not the most fair and unbiased move here (since the decision should be made strictly on week 15 performance of the teams and not something that took place during the regular season) and that he can be commish next year.Exactly. There's way too much money at stake for me to minimize my chances by having to beat two guys instead of one. That ain't happening.As for me being the commissioner, I can assure you that it's not by choice. I'm the only one with enough dedication to run the league. I've been trying to get out of the position for ten years. No one else will step up.I think that allowing the other owners (which will be an odd number) vote on it, it eliminates any conflict-of-interest that I would have.This would be a horrible move as it forced the other team in the championship team to now have to beat TWO teams in the final. This is clearly not a fair decision for the team not involved in the tie. The commish needs to rule here. He needs to decide on ONE team to advance to the final.As commisioner, I think you need to take the high road here and have both teams advance with the highest scoring team next week (of the three) winning the championship.
I disagree. Voting allows for rooting interest. If there's a guy in your league that has dominated and is a heavy favorite then people will automatically vote against him, same way they'd vote for the Cinderella story. You need to man up and make a decision. Seems like you've already done your homework and come up with a good justification for awarding the win to the guy that swept all but one of the tiebreaker options. Unfortunately for you, you already blew this one by not having a concrete rule in place. Take the heat and learn from it. If you really feel inebted to the loser give him some of your winnings from your playoff run provided he understands it's in the form of a "self-fine" for your error. Don't let him think it's "hush money" for covering your mistake and in no way should it be considered a precedent for future mistakes. I'd only recommend doing this if you feel it will be viewed as righting a wrong. Some people may consider it something entirely different and unethical.The league does not use decimal scoring, although we have begun discussing making the switch next year. (Just for fun, I figured out the scoring with a decimal system and it broke the tie, surprisingly, by a fairly wide margin).The main problem here, is that we've been in existance for a long time (1992) and we rarely even have a tie during the regualr season (probably around 5 in 16 years). In fact, at a pre-draft meeting a year or so ago, someone brought up the possibility of a playoff tie and a lot of suggestions were tossed around, but no concrete rule was ever put in place and it was never discussed again. Mea Culpa, as comissioner).I figured out who wins the tie by every suiggestion in this thread. Decimal, starters TDs, high bench player, total bench score, and seed. The same guy wins every single tie-breaker except one...seed. And that is because he beat teh other guy head-to-head twice during the regular season (which is tie-breaker #1). The lower-seed even had more total points.To make matters worse, I won the other semi-final game, so it will determoine my opponent in teh finals, thus making any decision I make be a conflict of interest.As commisioner, I may just send out a league-wide email and have the other guys (omitting me and the two participants) vote after being presented all the data.What say ye?
Assuming you cannot break the tie after the fact, would your chances be minimized if the two tied teams played again in week 16, with the winner playing you in week 17? With the caveat that you are the champ if you beat both teams in week 16.Exactly. There's way too much money at stake for me to minimize my chances by having to beat two guys instead of one. That ain't happening....This would be a horrible move as it forced the other team in the championship team to now have to beat TWO teams in the final. This is clearly not a fair decision for the team not involved in the tie. The commish needs to rule here. He needs to decide on ONE team to advance to the final.As commisioner, I think you need to take the high road here and have both teams advance with the highest scoring team next week (of the three) winning the championship.
The bottom line is that the league lacked the foresight to plan in advance for this tie. A decision has to be made to determine who moves on. After considering all the facts, it seems that the most sensible, fair and unbiased decision is to judge the performance of the starting players that was not yet accounted for in the game. To penalize another team in the league who was not involved in this tie is completely unreasonable.So making up a tie breaking rule after the fact, is fair to the other two teams?It doesn't matter why you are commish, but as always commish is a thankless but important job. The fact that you are the finals opponent for the winner of the tiebreaker is not relevant and for Dr. Octopus to act like you need to shoulder the blame here is silly. You and your entire league are equally to blame for the situation you are in, so why should you be punished since it happens to be you in the final against the winner of this tied game?Allowing a vote is not a good resolution b/c people are most often not voting for the best reason, but instead they vote for their friend or against who they don't like and not for the right reasons. The fact that you have been commish for 10 years (and didn't want to ... any everyone knows it) gives you more fuel to defend any decision you make. If you decide on decimal scoring to score the currently unjudged yardage of the game then you can tell anyone who opposes that move to show you why it is not the most fair and unbiased move here (since the decision should be made strictly on week 15 performance of the teams and not something that took place during the regular season) and that he can be commish next year.Exactly. There's way too much money at stake for me to minimize my chances by having to beat two guys instead of one. That ain't happening.As for me being the commissioner, I can assure you that it's not by choice. I'm the only one with enough dedication to run the league. I've been trying to get out of the position for ten years. No one else will step up.I think that allowing the other owners (which will be an odd number) vote on it, it eliminates any conflict-of-interest that I would have.This would be a horrible move as it forced the other team in the championship team to now have to beat TWO teams in the final. This is clearly not a fair decision for the team not involved in the tie. The commish needs to rule here. He needs to decide on ONE team to advance to the final.As commisioner, I think you need to take the high road here and have both teams advance with the highest scoring team next week (of the three) winning the championship.
That isn't the worst decision you could have made, but it shows an unwillingness to make a tough decision by the commish.I understand the fact that some people view the implimentation of decimal scoring to break this tie as a change in the scoring system, but that is a very uncompromising view. To me, it makes the most sense to decide the outcome of the game based on the players both teams actually started in the game. The guy who ends up losing due to the implementation of decimal scoring, can't come back and say that it's not fair b/c he would have started other players had he known it was decimal scoring. The only reason teams don't use decimal scoring is to make the scoring a little easier to calculate. Well, now there is a tough decision to make here. It needs to be made. Forcing the teams to potentially play in week 17 is not good at all. There are too many unpredictable benchings of healthy fantasy studs in week 17. I honestly don't understand how changing the rules of how long the season is could be viewed as being a better decision than judging player yardage that was not scored in the week the tie took place. It is a tough decision to make, but it has to be made.We are stuck with this same situation this year. Ties allowed in the regular season and no procedure for the playoffs (doh). It would be unfair to settle the tie afterward, since those rules were not in place. One could argue the decimal scoring may be a legit compromise there, but I would argue that you can't change the scoring rules after the fact. Of course we adopt a tiebreaker procedure for future games, but we still need to advance someone.The proposal. The tied teams play again this week, with the winner playing against the other semi winner in Week 17. However, if the other semi winner beats both teams in Week 16, then they are the champ, since they would have beaten whichever team should have advanced if there existed a legit tiebreaker. Should any of the 3 teams involved have a problem with this proposal? I know rosters are not built for Week 17, but the other semi winner should take care of business in Week 16 or the tied teams should have taken care of business in Week 15.
Just saying what I would do if I was him. As commisioner I would take responsibility for not being able to see the possibility of having a plyoff game end in a tie - considering they have had ties in the past not sure how it was overlooked.You are going to have one friend (presumably this is a local league) upset that you randomly made up a new rule to make the other team advance. No matter how fair you think going to decimal scoring is (and maybe you're right that it is), the other person is going to say "but we tied based on our scoring system in place, we don't use decimal scoring". Hopefully he will undertsand and not be a baby about it, but at the same time, Newbie could take the heat as a stand up guy and say they both advance. I readily admiited in the rest of my original post that its not fair to him, but based on the cicumstances its just as fair as any solution. For some reason you are so convinced otherwise, but some one is getting screwed no matter what decision is made. So if it was me I'd take the heat for my mistake and take my chances next week. At least I'd still have a chance, which is more than I can say about the person being left out based on a random after the fact decision.The bottom line is that the league lacked the foresight to plan in advance for this tie. A decision has to be made to determine who moves on. After considering all the facts, it seems that the most sensible, fair and unbiased decision is to judge the performance of the starting players that was not yet accounted for in the game. To penalize another team in the league who was not involved in this tie is completely unreasonable.So making up a tie breaking rule after the fact, is fair to the other two teams?It doesn't matter why you are commish, but as always commish is a thankless but important job. The fact that you are the finals opponent for the winner of the tiebreaker is not relevant and for Dr. Octopus to act like you need to shoulder the blame here is silly. You and your entire league are equally to blame for the situation you are in, so why should you be punished since it happens to be you in the final against the winner of this tied game?Allowing a vote is not a good resolution b/c people are most often not voting for the best reason, but instead they vote for their friend or against who they don't like and not for the right reasons. The fact that you have been commish for 10 years (and didn't want to ... any everyone knows it) gives you more fuel to defend any decision you make. If you decide on decimal scoring to score the currently unjudged yardage of the game then you can tell anyone who opposes that move to show you why it is not the most fair and unbiased move here (since the decision should be made strictly on week 15 performance of the teams and not something that took place during the regular season) and that he can be commish next year.Exactly. There's way too much money at stake for me to minimize my chances by having to beat two guys instead of one. That ain't happening.As for me being the commissioner, I can assure you that it's not by choice. I'm the only one with enough dedication to run the league. I've been trying to get out of the position for ten years. No one else will step up.I think that allowing the other owners (which will be an odd number) vote on it, it eliminates any conflict-of-interest that I would have.This would be a horrible move as it forced the other team in the championship team to now have to beat TWO teams in the final. This is clearly not a fair decision for the team not involved in the tie. The commish needs to rule here. He needs to decide on ONE team to advance to the final.As commisioner, I think you need to take the high road here and have both teams advance with the highest scoring team next week (of the three) winning the championship.
No matter what happens, a new rule has to be created after the fact. Nobody should be arguing that. I just feel that since we are deciding the outcome of a week 15 matchup, we should base ANY decision on something that happened in that matchup and it just so happens that there is a bunch of yardage that went unjudged since the league does not have decimal scoring.The thing I like least about your proposal is that you are forcing a team not involved in the tie to have to defeat 2 teams in week 16 to win the title. The identity of this team should be irrelevant, but b/c you know this team is the commish you are biasing what should be an unbaised decision in order to punish the commish for not forcing the league to make a decision on this playoff tiebreaker before the season. I think that is over the top and very biased. As the commish already said, nobody else in his league wants to step up to be commish even though they know he would rather not be commish. It's just not right to blame him for a job he doesn't want when the entire league decides on the rules and not just the commish.Just saying what I would do if I was him. As commisioner I would take responsibility for not being able to see the possibility of having a plyoff game end in a tie - considering they have had ties in the past not sure how it was overlooked.You are going to have one friend (presumably this is a local league) upset that you randomly made up a new rule to make the other team advance. No matter how fair you think going to decimal scoring is (and maybe you're right that it is), the other person is going to say "but we tied based on our scoring system in place, we don't use decimal scoring". Hopefully he will undertsand and not be a baby about it, but at the same time, Newbie could take the heat as a stand up guy and say they both advance. I readily admiited in the rest of my original post that its not fair to him, but based on the cicumstances its just as fair as any solution. For some reason you are so convinced otherwise, but some one is getting screwed no matter what decision is made. So if it was me I'd take the heat for my mistake and take my chances next week. At least I'd still have a chance, which is more than I can say about the person being left out based on a random after the fact decision.The bottom line is that the league lacked the foresight to plan in advance for this tie. A decision has to be made to determine who moves on. After considering all the facts, it seems that the most sensible, fair and unbiased decision is to judge the performance of the starting players that was not yet accounted for in the game. To penalize another team in the league who was not involved in this tie is completely unreasonable.So making up a tie breaking rule after the fact, is fair to the other two teams?It doesn't matter why you are commish, but as always commish is a thankless but important job. The fact that you are the finals opponent for the winner of the tiebreaker is not relevant and for Dr. Octopus to act like you need to shoulder the blame here is silly. You and your entire league are equally to blame for the situation you are in, so why should you be punished since it happens to be you in the final against the winner of this tied game?Allowing a vote is not a good resolution b/c people are most often not voting for the best reason, but instead they vote for their friend or against who they don't like and not for the right reasons. The fact that you have been commish for 10 years (and didn't want to ... any everyone knows it) gives you more fuel to defend any decision you make. If you decide on decimal scoring to score the currently unjudged yardage of the game then you can tell anyone who opposes that move to show you why it is not the most fair and unbiased move here (since the decision should be made strictly on week 15 performance of the teams and not something that took place during the regular season) and that he can be commish next year.Exactly. There's way too much money at stake for me to minimize my chances by having to beat two guys instead of one. That ain't happening.As for me being the commissioner, I can assure you that it's not by choice. I'm the only one with enough dedication to run the league. I've been trying to get out of the position for ten years. No one else will step up.I think that allowing the other owners (which will be an odd number) vote on it, it eliminates any conflict-of-interest that I would have.This would be a horrible move as it forced the other team in the championship team to now have to beat TWO teams in the final. This is clearly not a fair decision for the team not involved in the tie. The commish needs to rule here. He needs to decide on ONE team to advance to the final.As commisioner, I think you need to take the high road here and have both teams advance with the highest scoring team next week (of the three) winning the championship.
If I allow voting, I'm not too worried about the friend-thing. We are all local guys from a small town who share beers frequently. Everyone is friends.As for feeling indebted to whoever loses, I wouldn't feel bad at all. Although it is a good league as far as consistency goes, there is not a lot of dedication. No one else will even step up to be treasurer. I have to collect, keep track, and hold all the money. In fact, one guy didn't even have his money at the draft and I agreed (against our league rules) to let him owe me the other half until he would "run it over to my house next week". That was in late August. I still don't have it. Ironically, he's one of the owners involved in this tie.As for someone thinking I have a preference as to who I play in the finals, both were 8-6 and there was only a 6 pt. per game difference in their point total. It doesn't matter to me, so I'm not worrying about either of them, or any of the others in the league, thinking I have a preferred opponent. Both have quality lineups. As for the 'righting of a wrong', that would have to be a league-wide financial consolation. Every rule we make or change is league-wide. Same goes for the idea of thinking of everything. I ceratinly will not punish myself when I'm the only one willing to do anything for this league.I disagree. Voting allows for rooting interest. If there's a guy in your league that has dominated and is a heavy favorite then people will automatically vote against him, same way they'd vote for the Cinderella story. You need to man up and make a decision. Seems like you've already done your homework and come up with a good justification for awarding the win to the guy that swept all but one of the tiebreaker options. Unfortunately for you, you already blew this one by not having a concrete rule in place. Take the heat and learn from it. If you really feel inebted to the loser give him some of your winnings from your playoff run provided he understands it's in the form of a "self-fine" for your error. Don't let him think it's "hush money" for covering your mistake and in no way should it be considered a precedent for future mistakes. I'd only recommend doing this if you feel it will be viewed as righting a wrong. Some people may consider it something entirely different and unethical.The league does not use decimal scoring, although we have begun discussing making the switch next year. (Just for fun, I figured out the scoring with a decimal system and it broke the tie, surprisingly, by a fairly wide margin).The main problem here, is that we've been in existance for a long time (1992) and we rarely even have a tie during the regualr season (probably around 5 in 16 years). In fact, at a pre-draft meeting a year or so ago, someone brought up the possibility of a playoff tie and a lot of suggestions were tossed around, but no concrete rule was ever put in place and it was never discussed again. Mea Culpa, as comissioner).I figured out who wins the tie by every suiggestion in this thread. Decimal, starters TDs, high bench player, total bench score, and seed. The same guy wins every single tie-breaker except one...seed. And that is because he beat teh other guy head-to-head twice during the regular season (which is tie-breaker #1). The lower-seed even had more total points.To make matters worse, I won the other semi-final game, so it will determoine my opponent in teh finals, thus making any decision I make be a conflict of interest.As commisioner, I may just send out a league-wide email and have the other guys (omitting me and the two participants) vote after being presented all the data.What say ye?
Like I said in my last post before this, no matter what decision is made YOU ARE CREATING A NEW RULE AFTER THE FACT. Your argument is that "changing the rules after the fact will negatively impact one team." My response to that is that there needs to be a winner and a loser in every fantasy playoff game. I would also add that changing the rules after the fact to make it a 3-way game in week 16 and potentially a week 17 championship game (when teams didn't plan their rosters around playing in week 17) presents more complications since you are affecting a team not involved in this tie just b/c you don't think it is right for the commish to use his best judgement to decide the outcome of a week 15 playoff game.So, in both situations (your proposal and my proposal), we are both creating a new rule after the fact that will potentially negatively impact at least one team. In your proposal, though, that one team could be the team not involved in the week 15 tie, which IMO is not something I would want to happen as commish.I agree there is no "right" answer here. I just don't think extending the season by a week when people were planning all season long for week 16 to be the final possible week is the best choice. I think there are better choices out there.There was no tiebreaker in place so the teams will have to play again in week 16 to determine the winner. Changing the rules after the fact will negatively impact one team. It is simply more fair to settle it on the field, giving each team an equal chance to advance without knowing how it impacts ahead of time. Of course, tie breaking procedures will have to be developed for future games, but let's skip that.What is fair for the Other Guy (the other semi winner)? Let us assume that Team A and Team B are tied. Other Guy would have had to play one of those in week 16. If Other Guy beats both of them in week 16, then Other Guy should be the champ, since it would not matter how the tie was broke. If Other Guy loses to both teams, then Other Guy should be done, again the tie breaking was irrelevant. No disservice has been done to Other Guy and the football gods are happy. In the case of Other Guy losing to both, the champ would be the winner of the game between Team A and Team B, where they settled the tie on the field.The football gods are not happy when Other Guy beats Team A and loses to Team B. If Team A had advanced, then Other Guy would be the champ. If Team B had advanced, then Team B would be the champ. Since the A-B game ended in a tie, Other Guy has a 50% chance that he "should have won" and 50% "should have lost". No way to know. The second A-B game will determine the "real" winner between A and B. The question then becomes, would Other Guy prefer to take his chances that the A-B winner is the team he beat? He has a 50% chance of being the champ. Or would Other Guy prefer to play the A-B winner head to head in week 17? Given the 50-50 nature of settling it in week 16, I think it would be the most fair by settling the tie and then advancing the A-B winner to play Other Guy head to head. On the other hand, Other Guy may have a sucky Week 17 team and would prefer the 50% chance from Week 16. Perhaps the only fair thing is to let Other Guy decide his poison before Week 16. Of course only for the situation where he beats one team and not the other.I would prefer another week of playing, but there really is no "right" answer here. Get over the fact the semi was undecided and move on. Let the Other Guy decide his fate and live with the consequences He has a 50-50 chance of being happy either way.
Kind of hard to get those one yard TD plunges without other players getting those "empty" yards, though, isn't it?Twilight said:Do it how you like, but I've always hated the justifications of X way of scoring 20 pts is better than Y. In your case, 127 empty yards has a worse chance of helping their team win, since they couldn't put points on the board. Arguments are equal both ways.DBomb said:We do total offensive yards by starting roster. I think it is a very good way to settle a tie. Touchdowns can inflate points. A player with 2 yards rushing and 2 TDS has the same point value as a player with 127 yards rushing. So awarding the guy who's players actually had better stats, not just a product of luck, is the way to go.
ALMOST. Still need a tiebreak rule in place.We use decimal scoring. That almost eliminates the possibility of a tie.
Never, never, never should ties be allowed in the playoffs.In the absence of tiebreak rules spelled out for playoffs, the fairest thing to do is implement the regular season tiebreak rules already in place. I'm not saying I think those rules are fair, but it is the fairest implementation of a tiebreak for you right now based on the rules you have.Next year be more prepared.This would be a horrible move as it forced the other team in the championship team to now have to beat TWO teams in the final. This is clearly not a fair decision for the team not involved in the tie. The commish needs to rule here. He needs to decide on ONE team to advance to the final.As commisioner, I think you need to take the high road here and have both teams advance with the highest scoring team next week (of the three) winning the championship.
I agree that he's in for a ####storm either way but the only rule he currently has on the books refers to the regular season. It may be the lesser of two evils to apply it to the playoffs in this instance. Either way he's screwed.So making up a tie breaking rule after the fact, is fair to the other two teams?It doesn't matter why you are commish, but as always commish is a thankless but important job. The fact that you are the finals opponent for the winner of the tiebreaker is not relevant and for Dr. Octopus to act like you need to shoulder the blame here is silly. You and your entire league are equally to blame for the situation you are in, so why should you be punished since it happens to be you in the final against the winner of this tied game?Allowing a vote is not a good resolution b/c people are most often not voting for the best reason, but instead they vote for their friend or against who they don't like and not for the right reasons. The fact that you have been commish for 10 years (and didn't want to ... any everyone knows it) gives you more fuel to defend any decision you make. If you decide on decimal scoring to score the currently unjudged yardage of the game then you can tell anyone who opposes that move to show you why it is not the most fair and unbiased move here (since the decision should be made strictly on week 15 performance of the teams and not something that took place during the regular season) and that he can be commish next year.Exactly. There's way too much money at stake for me to minimize my chances by having to beat two guys instead of one. That ain't happening.As for me being the commissioner, I can assure you that it's not by choice. I'm the only one with enough dedication to run the league. I've been trying to get out of the position for ten years. No one else will step up.I think that allowing the other owners (which will be an odd number) vote on it, it eliminates any conflict-of-interest that I would have.This would be a horrible move as it forced the other team in the championship team to now have to beat TWO teams in the final. This is clearly not a fair decision for the team not involved in the tie. The commish needs to rule here. He needs to decide on ONE team to advance to the final.As commisioner, I think you need to take the high road here and have both teams advance with the highest scoring team next week (of the three) winning the championship.
I'm going to add that adding week 16 is a terrible idea and unfairly harms the owner who has built his team to win in week 16. I personally dropped a Defense that would have a great matchup in week 17 to go with a Defense that has a better week 16 matchup. I think that the best tie breaker here is the decimal system. I don't like the idea of chosing an alternate player - because what if a starter gets deactivated just before gametime (we're all watching those Sunday Updates, right?) and you have to start your alternate. And you don't have another alternate because they played in the Thursday night game.ETA: I'm surprised nobody has thrown out the obvious: Coin toss. It's not the best, but in absence of an established tiebreaker it's an accepted alternative.I agree there is no "right" answer here. I just don't think extending the season by a week when people were planning all season long for week 16 to be the final possible week is the best choice. I think there are better choices out there.