Tie breaker question... (1 Viewer)

[Da Gildz]

Alex, this is directed to you or any of the FFPC staff...

I realize the tie breaker is total pts. But if you're rewarding the 1 seed as the best 'head-to-head record', shouldn't you be utilizing Head-to-head record as the #1 tiebreaker?? At least if its down to 2 teams only. Seems odd to me that on one hand, you're giving the best record in the league precedence over total pts, yet when there is a tie, you use total pts as the determining factor???

Can this be reviewed at all in the offseason? I would use H2H ties first and foremost. If not, then you should consider making the #1 seed the highest point total in the league. Seems like the FFPC is contradicting themselves here with this tiebreak scenario...

 

[Alex - FFPC]

We are not fans of H2H as a 1st tiebreaker under any circumstance. I simply cannot see advocating a situation where an 9-2 team with 1700 points would be a higher seed over a 9-2 team with 1500.

Total points as a tie-breaker for W/L records is actually a great way to put additional weight on points scored, which is what everyone advocates as the greatest indicator for success.

As I have said before, overall we are very pleased with the seeding process in the Footballguys Players Championship as we are now in the 5th year of this format (as well as 7th year in the FFPC Main Event with the identical format). I don't foresee this area as being consideration for change but I appreciate your opinion and input.

 

[Da Gildz]

We are not fans of H2H as a 1st tiebreaker under any circumstance. I simply cannot see advocating a situation where an 9-2 team with 1700 points would be a higher seed over a 9-2 team with 1500.

Total points as a tie-breaker for W/L records is actually a great way to put additional weight on points scored, which is what everyone advocates as the greatest indicator for success.

As I have said before, overall we are very pleased with the seeding process in the Footballguys Players Championship as we are now in the 5th year of this format (as well as 7th year in the FFPC Main Event with the identical format). I don't foresee this area as being consideration for change but I appreciate your opinion and input.

But you're ok with a 9-2 team with 1,500 pts being a higher seed over a 8-3 team with 1,700 pts ?

Isnt it obvious the 8-3 team is the superior team?

But its H2H format so that will happen and everyone understands that. Its like you want to hedge the system using Total Pts as the #1 tiebreaker. The FFPC is telling us getting the best record is the highest reward and overall #1 seed...but sorry about your luck, if you end in a tie, we're going to total pts.

You have to see that a bit puzzling no ? If you rewarded the Total Pts leader with the #1 seed, would you ever use H2H record as the 1st tiebreaker? Of course not.

 

[Alex - FFPC]

We are not fans of H2H as a 1st tiebreaker under any circumstance. I simply cannot see advocating a situation where an 9-2 team with 1700 points would be a higher seed over a 9-2 team with 1500.

Total points as a tie-breaker for W/L records is actually a great way to put additional weight on points scored, which is what everyone advocates as the greatest indicator for success.

As I have said before, overall we are very pleased with the seeding process in the Footballguys Players Championship as we are now in the 5th year of this format (as well as 7th year in the FFPC Main Event with the identical format). I don't foresee this area as being consideration for change but I appreciate your opinion and input.

But you're ok with a 9-2 team with 1,500 pts being a higher seed over a 8-3 team with 1,700 pts ?

Isnt it obvious the 8-3 team is the superior team?

But its H2H format so that will happen and everyone understands that. Its like you want to hedge the system using Total Pts as the #1 tiebreaker. The FFPC is telling us getting the best record is the highest reward and overall #1 seed...but sorry about your luck, if you end in a tie, we're going to total pts.

You have to see that a bit puzzling no ? If you rewarded the Total Pts leader with the #1 seed, would you ever use H2H record as the 1st tiebreaker? Of course not.

This is H2H AND a total points format so there will always be situations where a team with more points will be seeded lower than a team with better record or viceversa. That's just the nature of it and if you want to avoid it, you either have to have a total points only format or a W/L record only format. When you mix the two, you get results which sometimes don't fall in line with either formats.

 

[Da Gildz]

We are not fans of H2H as a 1st tiebreaker under any circumstance. I simply cannot see advocating a situation where an 9-2 team with 1700 points would be a higher seed over a 9-2 team with 1500.

Total points as a tie-breaker for W/L records is actually a great way to put additional weight on points scored, which is what everyone advocates as the greatest indicator for success.

As I have said before, overall we are very pleased with the seeding process in the Footballguys Players Championship as we are now in the 5th year of this format (as well as 7th year in the FFPC Main Event with the identical format). I don't foresee this area as being consideration for change but I appreciate your opinion and input.

But you're ok with a 9-2 team with 1,500 pts being a higher seed over a 8-3 team with 1,700 pts ?

Isnt it obvious the 8-3 team is the superior team?

But its H2H format so that will happen and everyone understands that. Its like you want to hedge the system using Total Pts as the #1 tiebreaker. The FFPC is telling us getting the best record is the highest reward and overall #1 seed...but sorry about your luck, if you end in a tie, we're going to total pts.

You have to see that a bit puzzling no ? If you rewarded the Total Pts leader with the #1 seed, would you ever use H2H record as the 1st tiebreaker? Of course not.

This is H2H AND a total points format so there will always be situations where a team with more points will be seeded lower than a team with better record or viceversa. That's just the nature of it and if you want to avoid it, you either have to have a total points only format or a W/L record only format. When you mix the two, you get results which don't fall in line with either formats.

Right but you are valuing the H2H record first and foremost. When that is the #1/#3 seeds, that holds priority over the points. That's where my confusion lies. If you awarded the #1 seed as the highest total pts team, then it would at least be consistent with the tiebreaker you have in place. You don't see what im saying here??

 

[Alex - FFPC]

We are not fans of H2H as a 1st tiebreaker under any circumstance. I simply cannot see advocating a situation where an 9-2 team with 1700 points would be a higher seed over a 9-2 team with 1500.

Total points as a tie-breaker for W/L records is actually a great way to put additional weight on points scored, which is what everyone advocates as the greatest indicator for success.

As I have said before, overall we are very pleased with the seeding process in the Footballguys Players Championship as we are now in the 5th year of this format (as well as 7th year in the FFPC Main Event with the identical format). I don't foresee this area as being consideration for change but I appreciate your opinion and input.

But you're ok with a 9-2 team with 1,500 pts being a higher seed over a 8-3 team with 1,700 pts ?

Isnt it obvious the 8-3 team is the superior team?

But its H2H format so that will happen and everyone understands that. Its like you want to hedge the system using Total Pts as the #1 tiebreaker. The FFPC is telling us getting the best record is the highest reward and overall #1 seed...but sorry about your luck, if you end in a tie, we're going to total pts.

You have to see that a bit puzzling no ? If you rewarded the Total Pts leader with the #1 seed, would you ever use H2H record as the 1st tiebreaker? Of course not.

This is H2H AND a total points format so there will always be situations where a team with more points will be seeded lower than a team with better record or viceversa. That's just the nature of it and if you want to avoid it, you either have to have a total points only format or a W/L record only format. When you mix the two, you get results which don't fall in line with either formats.

Right but you are valuing the H2H record first and foremost. When that is the #1/#3 seeds, that holds priority over the points. That's where my confusion lies. If you awarded the #1 seed as the highest total pts team, then it would at least be consistent with the tiebreaker you have in place. You don't see what im saying here??

I actually don't see any confusion at all. The confusion is with your interpretation of the format. I say that with all due respect and not trying to be derogatory.

In the years of running this format, there had been very few instances where someone advocated for H2H as the 1st tie breaker. I actually play in 1 league where it's a purely a W/L record league with H2H as the 1st tiebreaker and I think it's a terrible format (I only play it because its a big money league and full of donkeys LOL). The H2H tiebreaker actually has to revert back to total points anyway where more than 2 teams are tied with the same record, which is just silly IMO. But I guess there are some people that like it.

 

[Da Gildz]

But the 1 seed is given to the best record, u don't see that disconnect? You're using total pts as the tie breaker when your own tournament is telling everyone in order to get the #1 overall seed, u must have the best H2H record!? You can be 11-0 and 8th in scoring, doesn't matter, you're the 1 seed. But wait , we're going to use points first and foremost to break any ties...Frankly Alex, im surprised you cannot see the angle here. As I stated previously, if u rewarded the #1 seed as the highest total point scorer, would u ever use H2H records as the 1st tiebreaker? No. Nor should you. I don't see why it doesn't work the other way.

If you want to keep total pts as the 1st tiebreaker, which it sounds like that's the only option to you, why not make the #1 seed the highest total point scorer? #2 best record, #3 next highest point etc etc. With the tiebreaker in place, you're telling us you value total points more, so why not be consistent with the seeding....

 

[Alex - FFPC]

But the 1 seed is given to the best record, u don't see that disconnect? You're using total pts as the tie breaker when your own tournament is telling everyone in order to get the #1 overall seed, u must have the best H2H record!? You can be 11-0 and 8th in scoring, doesn't matter, you're the 1 seed. But wait , we're going to use points first and foremost to break any ties...Frankly Alex, im surprised you cannot see the angle here. As I stated previously, if u rewarded the #1 seed as the highest total point scorer, would u ever use H2H records as the 1st tiebreaker? No. Nor should you. I don't see why it doesn't work the other way.

If you want to keep total pts as the 1st tiebreaker, which it sounds like that's the only option to you, why not make the #1 seed the highest total point scorer? #2 best record, #3 next highest point etc etc. With the tiebreaker in place, you're telling us you value total points more, so why not be consistent with the seeding....

I think we're just in fundamental disagreement here.

 

[Da Gildz]

Really just think its a disconnect with your seeding, that's all. I understand you value pts more then record and so do I. At the end of the day, that's really the best indicator. But when u reward the #1 seed in each league with the best record, the tiebreaker should also follow suit. This is the only tournament/league im in which is H2H, but uses points as the first tiebreaker. Again if you're calling it BOTH a H2H and Points tournament, just make the 1 seed the most points in the league. So yea you'll have some 5-6 teams as the #1 seed, who cares. At least its consistent with your 1st tiebreaker.

 

[Alex - FFPC]

Really just think its a disconnect with your seeding, that's all. I understand you value pts more then record and so do I. At the end of the day, that's really the best indicator. But when u reward the #1 seed in each league with the best record, the tiebreaker should also follow suit. This is the only tournament/league im in which is H2H, but uses points as the first tiebreaker. Again if you're calling it BOTH a H2H and Points tournament, just make the 1 seed the most points in the league. So yea you'll have some 5-6 teams as the #1 seed, who cares. At least its consistent with your 1st tiebreaker.

I don't necessarily dislike the format where the 1 & 3-seeds are points and 2 & 4-seeds are record (although it does change the league dynamic somewhat which I don't like). We went with the current format back in 2008 with the Main Event and used it for the Footballguys tourney in 2010 so for the sake of continuity alone, which we consider to be highly important, we would be opposed to making the switch. Had we launched with the format you suggest and used it all these years, I probably would be saying the same thing in it's defense - in the face of similar criticism, which would've certainly existed, as it always does in FF.

 

[ImTheScientist]

I like points as the tie breaker. Why would you reward luck of W-L record?

 

[Da Gildz]

I like points as the tie breaker. Why would you reward luck of W-L record?

But the #1 seed in the league is given to the best W-L record...That's my only beef here. So the record takes precedent in overall seeding but the 1st tiebreaker is pts. It just doesn't follow suit with the playoff seeding. In H2H leagues, luck is always a factor. Whether its facing the best team with all his guys on byes or scoring less pts but owning the H2H tie vs the 1 team you're tied with to get into the playoffs. S#*T happens as they say.

Its like if I gave you the option before the season started of having:

Team A: (8-3) with a low point total

OR

Team B: (5-6) with "insert a high point total"...which team are u taking??

I think its fairly obvious, you're taking Team A here every time. That's pretty much my point in a nutshell.

 

[cdubz]

I prefer the current system and think it does a good job of balancing consistency (W/L) and overall performance (total points).

I don't think using points as a primary tiebreaker is inconsistent. If you use H2H as a tiebreaker, you are elevating the results of 1 week over all others. Whereas season-long W/L and total points are both reflective of results over the total regular season.

I don't think there is an objectively right answer here, but IMHO I think they got this one right.

 

[Captain Hook]

FWIW my view is that the current system is very close to correct.

The only change I would make is to reverse the #3 and #4 seeds so

1) Best H2H record (but use their matchup as tie-breaker)

2) Remaining with most points

3) Remaining with most points

4) Remaining best H2H record (and tie-breaker for this one should be their H2H results)

 

[TwinTurbo]

It does seem more fair to have the #1 seed based on most points instead of best record, although the current format is fine too. Some teams with the best record have benefited greatly from a favorable schedule and facing opponents with top players on bye week or injured. I know it works both ways, but here's an extreme example:

http://myffpc.com/SetLineup.aspx?refid=FFE-EB51E3AC5365&viewingTeam=6

This team will be 10-0 after MNF if Sanchez scores less than 21, and has only 992 points against through the first 9 weeks. I'm guessing very few teams, if any, in this contest have fewer points scored against. This owner lucked out again this week as his opponent has Luck on a bye. To be fair, this league was a very early Aug. draft and he nailed the first two picks before it fell apart after round 4. So on the one hand, I think it's awesome that any team has a shot to make the playoffs based on record. On the other hand, this below average team will be rewarded with the #1 seed almost entirely due to a very fortunate schedule.

I'm not advocating to overhaul the format for a small number of cases such as this. But I do get the points that Da Gildz is making regarding the tiebreakers.