Tie Breaker Clarification (1 Viewer)

[red]

below is an email from the commish. any thoughts would be appreciated; i understand that the rules may be vague and we may need to change them for next year, so please just comment on who you think should get the 6th and final playoff spot.names have been changed to protect the innocent...TIA

It has come to my attention that I may have misinterpreted the tie-breaker rule. I have always struggled with this, so hear me out and PLEASE help to clarify this for me. Here are the rules as listed on the website:If a game ends in a tie, the winner will be decided by the points scored by the total reserve team. If the game is still tied, then a coin flip will decide the winner. If teams end the season with the same record for the year, the first tie-breaker will be head-to-head play. If the teams are in the same division and tied head-to-head, then the second tie-breaker will be the better division record. If the teams' division record are tied, then the third tie-breaker will be total points scored by starting lineup for the season. If there are 3 or more teams from different divisions tied head-to-head, then the tie-breaker will be their record versus all common opponents. If there are 3 or more teams from different division tied head-to-head and versus all common opponents, then total points of starting lineup scored during the season will be used as the tie-breaker. If total points by the starting lineup are tied, then a coin flip will decide the winner. So, I apologize for any confusion, but based on the above, this is how now see the #6 seed: There were four teams tied with 7-7 records—A, B, C, and D. According to rule #5, this is how the head to head records among each other (i.e. common opponents) plays out: TEAM HTH RECORD DIVISION RECORD BREAKDOWN TOTAL POINTS Team A 2-2 (0.500) 3-3 wins vs. B and Closses vs. B and D 638 Team B 2-2 (0.500) 2-4 wins vs. A and Dlosses vs. A and C 660 Team C 2-1 (0.667) 3-3 wins vs. B and Dlosses vs. A 599 Team D 1-2 (0.333) 4-2 wins vs. Alosses vs. B and C 554 My understanding has been that since it’s an uneven number of games (because of two interdivision teams), it becomes a “mismatch” or “moshpit” and we essentially move on to the next tie-breaker, rule #6. If this is in fact the case, then Team B earns the #6 Playoff spot based upon total points (660). If this is NOT the case, then Team C earns the #6 playoff spot based upon tie-breaker #5 winning percentage (0.667) vs. common opponents. Conversely, Team D has the best overall divisional record at 4-2. does he earn the play off spot? I believe the former is accurate and what we have done historically (i.e. Team B earns the #6 seed), but can any of the old timers comment on this?Thanks, The Commish

 

[TommyGilmore]

First, you shouldn't use "Head To Head" because the 4 teams did not play each other an equal number of times.

Second, I am not sure if you should be going by "Common Opponents" unless you have an equal number of games played by all teams.

 

[Turtles]

Your commissioner seems to think that "head-to-head" and "common opponents" are synonymous.

Unless you have an abnormally large league, wouldn't "common opponents" mean every other team in the league (since you all presumably play every other team)?

---

FWIW, if I was Team D, I'd argue that I should get the spot based on how the rules are written:

The rule explicitly states that "If there are 3 or more teams from different divisions tied head-to-head, then the tie-breaker will be their record versus all common opponents." Your common opponents are all the team *except* the four of you. Team D is 6-5 against those teams; nobody else is over .500.

---

First of all, I'd definitely do whatever had been done in past seasons if you've had a similar situation before.

If not, I think the "spirit of the rule" intends to give Team C the spot, but the rule's really written poorly. I'd hate to be the commish in that situation (and I wouldn't be, because I'd have clearer rules if I was the Commish), but I'd probably give Team C the #6 seed if I were.

Just go to a total points tiebreak in the future. It's waaaay less messy, and the best of the tied teams gets the playoff spot.

 

[Topes]

i understand that the rules may be vague and we may need to change them for next year

This.I can't comment on who I think should get your sixth slot because I haven't got the 20 minutes to spare to try to apply your rules to your scenario.

This "common opponents" matter really needs to be killed. Your commish (in the interpretation he disfavors) seems to assume that "common opponents" means "among the tied teams". An equally valid interpretation would be including all other teams which each of the four played. If everybody in your league plays everybody else, the "common opponents" set is the entire set, the overall record, and may be discarded.

i understand that the rules may be vague and we may need to change them for next year

 

[Topes]

Your commissioner seems to think that "head-to-head" and "common opponents" are synonymous.Unless you have an abnormally large league, wouldn't "common opponents" mean every other team in the league (since you all presumably play every other team)?

IF everybody plays everybody else, the common opponents set is the entire set, and id identical to overall record. As such, this step could eb discarded.THAT this step could be meaningless should not be interpreted to mean that the step must mean something other than what it says. It could simply have been adopted from another league, without proper thought.IF each team does not play every other team during the regular season, then "common opponents" means something different. But I still don't think it means what your commish seems to think it means. Why? because it would be very coincidental for the common opponents set to be identical with the set of games played among the tied teams.

 

[TommyGilmore]

The rule explicitly states that "If there are 3 or more teams from different divisions tied head-to-head, then the tie-breaker will be their record versus all common opponents." Your common opponents are all the team *except* the four of you. Team D is 6-5 against those teams; nobody else is over .500.

I agree, although they should verify that Team D played the same "common opponents" as everyone else. (i.e., what if Team D's 6-5 record includes 2 wins against an opponent that Team A didn't even play?)

 

[Mjolnirs]

First off, you don’t say it, but from looking at this it seems A and B are in the same division. The first thing that needs to be done is break the tie in that division.

You show that A and B split their games so head to head fails. The next tie-breaker is division record which is in favor of A at 3-3 over B at 2-4.

So now you have A, C and D all from different divisions. Head to head breaks down here as A beat C, C beat D and D beat A, leaving everyone 1-1 in head to head.

The next tie-breaker is head to head versus common opponents. That is not shown in your info.

 

[TommyGilmore]

First off, you don’t say it, but from looking at this it seems A and B are in the same division.

I know that the NFL does it that way, but it doesn't look like red's league uses that rule.

 

[Mjolnirs]

First off, you don’t say it, but from looking at this it seems A and B are in the same division.

I know that the NFL does it that way, but it doesn't look like red's league uses that rule.

True, it doesn't. I was trying to apply common sense to the rules. The way those rules are written I don't think there is a correct answer.

 

[ChromeWeasel]

"If there are 3 or more teams from different division tied head-to-head and versus all common opponents, then total points of starting lineup scored during the season will be used as the tie-breaker. "

Your tiebreaker is really just Points Scored. That wall of text is pretty much unnecessary. Teams are ranked B-A-C-D.

Tell your commish to stop being an idiot and make this the FIRST tie breaker for all situations next year. Head to head is a stupid fantasy tiebreaker, for what should be obvious reason now.

 

[red]

thanks.

IIRC, we never first determined divisional placement but rather looked at all the tied teams together as a whole. second, each team plays teams in their division twice and teams outside their division once. so, i agree, that the common opponent things doesn't really apply since all the teams share the common opponents and is reflected in the overall record. my sense is if there are 3 or more teams from 2 or more divisions (we have 3), then we look at head to head. if one team beat everyone, then they win. if it's a mess (like above) then we go to total points (rule #6).

when the league was originally formed, it was to mimic the NFL as much as possible (it was originally a TD only league...afterall, NFL teams don't get points for yards) including the tie-breaker system, i guess. hence all the confusion....