Tiebreaker

[gbpfan1231]

Our league has 3 teams tied for last two playoff spots. 2 of these teams are in same division so they played each other twice and then these two teams played the other team only once. So the question is - who wins the head to head in below scenario or is head to head tied and it goes to next tiebreaker?

 

Team X beat Team Y twice (same division) Team X lost to Team Z

 

Team X is then 2-1 in Head to head between three teams

 

Team Y lost to X twice but Beat Z

 

Y is 1-2

 

Team Z beat X but lost to Y

 

Z is 1-1

 

So are they tied or does X get in because of .666 winning % and then go from there?

[Azazello1313]

X has h2h over Y, Y has it over Z, and Z has it over X. it's rock-paper-scissors. so it goes to the next tiebreaker.

[Woodside Warriors]

I thought divisions were set up so that top 2 or 3 from each division are in playoffs.

[stevegrab]

I thought divisions were set up so that top 2 or 3 from each division are in playoffs.

 

Some do it that way, but its better to have your wild card teams draw from multiple divisions. If you have 3 divisions of 4 and 6 playoff teams why should second place in each division make the playoffs when there may be better teams in other divisions?

[detlef]

FWIW, according to the NFL, when 3 or more teams are tied, they follow the order of tiebreakers until one is eliminated, not one is peeled off the top. And that's a major, major distinction.

 

After all, if you take it from the top, you peel off the team with a winning record among the three and then start over at the beginning. In that case the team with the worst record among the three would have the head to head over the team with the 2nd best record between the three teams. On the other hand, if you eliminate from the bottom, the team with the 1-2 record gets left out.

 

All that said, given the shortcomings of H2H in general in FF, I find it unfortunate that it is also the first tiebreak. In the future, I would simply go straight to points scored if teams are tied. The argument against is that it's not the way they do it in the NFL. The argument for is that this isn't the NFL. You have no ability to limit your opponents score, so the higher scoring team you are, the better you are.

[SpinalTapp]

Based on NFL tie breaker rules, here is how it would go down (assuming I got this right...see my earlier post):

 

1. One of the two teams in the same division would be eliminated based on division record (let's call them Team A vs Team B ...and Team A has the better divisional record).

2. The surviving team from this divisional tie breaker (let's assume Team A) would then be compared head-to-head with the remaining team (Team C) to determine the first wild card team.

3. Next, the loser of the divisional tie breaker (Team B ) would be compared head-to-head with the non divisional team (Team C) for the final playoff spot.

 

I think I have this right.

Edited November 29, 2011 by SpinalTapp

[Scooby's Hubby]

Based on NFL tie breaker rules, here is how it would go down (assuming I got this right...see my earlier post):

 

1. One of the two teams in the same division would be eliminated based on division record (let's call them Team A vs Team B ...and Team A has the better divisional record).

2. The surviving team from this divisional tie breaker (let's assume Team A) would then be compared head-to-head with the remaining team (Team C) to determine the first wild card team.

3. Next, the loser of the divisional tie breaker (Team would be compared to the non divisional team (Team C) for the final playoff spot.

 

I think I have this right.

that should be right, right?

[i_am_the_swammi]

depends what your rules say. If you are following the NFL guidelines:

 

Three or More Clubs

 

(Note: If two clubs remain tied after third or other clubs are eliminated, tie breaker reverts to step 1 of applicable two-club format.)

 

Head-to-head sweep. (Applicable only if one club has defeated each of the others or if one club has lost to each of the others.)

Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.

Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games, minimum of four.

Strength of victory.

Strength of schedule.

Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed.

Best combined ranking among all teams in points scored and points allowed.

Best net points in conference games.

Best net points in all games.

Best net touchdowns in all games.

Coin toss

 

Thus, since no club has defeated each of the others (they all beat each other), you go to best record in conference (which is moot, since all teams are in the same conference with the same record)....as are the next several tiebreakers...they are all non-factors since you don't have multiple conferences, only divisions.

 

The one that will likely determine the outcome is "Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed". However, most leagues I have been in use just "points scored" as a tiebreaker, since you really can't control how many points you give up (like NFL teams can).

[i_am_the_swammi]

Based on NFL tie breaker rules, here is how it would go down (assuming I got this right...see my earlier post):

 

1. One of the two teams in the same division would be eliminated based on division record (let's call them Team A vs Team B ...and Team A has the better divisional record).

2. The surviving team from this divisional tie breaker (let's assume Team A) would then be compared head-to-head with the remaining team (Team C) to determine the first wild card team.

3. Next, the loser of the divisional tie breaker (Team B ) would be compared head-to-head with the non divisional team (Team C) for the final playoff spot.

 

I think I have this right.

 

 

your scenario would only be if three teams were vying for one spot.....in the OPs original scenario, three teams are vying for two spots.

[stevegrab]

 

your scenario would only be if three teams were vying for one spot.....in the OPs original scenario, three teams are vying for two spots.

 

Assuming these 3 teams are vying for 2 wild card slots, then what does it matter? You find the best team from each division and compare them to the others. The team that is best is a wild card, then start over again. You're not trying to fill 2 spots at once from 3 teams.

 

Also wanted to point out we removed H2H as a tie-braker years ago. We always start with overall record, then if you're in the same division its division record, then total points. If not in the same division, then no division record so skip to total points.

Edited November 29, 2011 by stevegrab

[delusions of grandeur]

All that said, given the shortcomings of H2H in general in FF, I find it unfortunate that it is also the first tiebreak. In the future, I would simply go straight to points scored if teams are tied.

This. It's confusing enough figuring out what the right way to do it is in this situation, let alone having to explain all that crap to your league and hope it goes over well.

 

Fractional points + Points as tie-breaker = much less confusion and drama (not to mention I strongly believe that points should be the second most important category, being the basis of wins, to accumulate the most stats into points).

[SecondString]

No clear way to judge H2H, go to next tie-breaker.

[Big Country]

For those above that say you first eliminate one of the two teams from the same division, that IMO is wrong. You are looking at all of the potential teams as a single group for wild card spots that are open to all divisions. Essentially, at this point division is completely irrelevant.

 

To the OP, it matters greatly on what your rules state. When they state H2H is the tiebreaker, do they clearly state the it requires a sweep for this criteria to be used as it is in the NFL, or is the intent that the team with the best head to head record of those being compared gets the first spot and then the process starts over to compare for the next wild card spot?

 

Assuming it does not state that a sweep is needed, then one could very easily argue that Team X gets the first wild card spot as they have a 2-1 record, giving them the best H2H record amongst the 3 teams. You then start back over and compare Team Y and Team Z. Team Y beat Team Z, thus Team Y gets the second wild card spot.

 

Now, if you do have it stated that a clean sweep is needed, you would go on to whatever the 2nd and 3rd tiebreakers are for your league.

 

 

 

Hopefully all of this helps demonstrate why the use of H2H as a tiebreaker, especially as the first tiebreaker, is a poor choice for fantasy football purposes.

[Azazello1313]

Hopefully all of this helps demonstrate why the use of H2H as a tiebreaker, especially as the first tiebreaker, is a poor choice for fantasy football purposes.

 

it's fine if there's a sweep in a multi-way tie. but there rarely will be.

 

the bottom line is you CAN'T give it to one team over another if it doesn't have a head-to-head edge over that team. there is no "three-way" record, that is bullchit. you cannot give it to team X over team Z on head-to-head when team Z beat team X head-to-head. you can also not eliminate team Y in favor of team Z when team Y beat team Z head to head.

 

again, if there is no sweep among all tied teams, then you discard and move on to the next tiebreaker.

Edited November 29, 2011 by Azazello1313

[stevegrab]

For those above that say you first eliminate one of the two teams from the same division, that IMO is wrong. You are looking at all of the potential teams as a single group for wild card spots that are open to all divisions. Essentially, at this point division is completely irrelevant.

 

 

That is how the NFL does it, and I think it has merit. If we're looking at who wins a division and division record is used, why should that be thrown out when comparing 3 teams 2 of which are in the same division for wild card spots. If you are not ahead of me in our division standings why should you make the playoffs and I don't? So you take the best team in each division and compare them.

 

As far as head to head (H2H) that is implied between 2 teams only. If you're looking at multiple teams then you're doing a win-loss record against common opponents.

 

Its always going to be considered wrong by somebody, which is why it needs to be clear in your rules. This year we went from 2x6 to 3x4 (division x teams) and didn't address some things ahead of time. So we have been struggling to address them during the season.

 

PS I agree that H2H is not a good criteria, and this is why we eliminated it.

Edited November 29, 2011 by stevegrab

[delusions of grandeur]

That is how the NFL does it, and I think it has merit. If we're looking at who wins a division and division record is used, why should that be thrown out when comparing 3 teams 2 of which are in the same division for wild card spots. If you are not ahead of me in our division standings why should you make the playoffs and I don't? So you take the best team in each division and compare them.

 

As far as head to head (H2H) that is implied between 2 teams only. If you're looking at multiple teams then you're doing a win-loss record against common opponents.

 

Its always going to be considered wrong by somebody, which is why it needs to be clear in your rules. This year we went from 2x6 to 3x4 (division x teams) and didn't address some things ahead of time. So we have been struggling to address them during the season.

 

PS I agree that H2H is not a good criteria, and this is why we eliminated it.

No, see swammi's post above. The tie-breakers are different if it's 3 teams instead of 2.... It doesn't make sense to compare 2 teams in division, and the other one gets a free pass in that tie-breaker just for not being in the same division. It should be a moot factor, since not all tied parties are in the same division.... I see your logic, but with this situation, you have to throw divisions out, as it shows in Swammi's post with NFL tie breaker rules for 3 teams.

 

The only part wrong then about BC's post (assuming there's nothing in the rules to address this situation and you're gonig with NFL procedures), is that the rule states that you have to sweep both of the other parties to win that tie-breaker. Since no one did, you move on to the likely tie-breaker of total points (again, see post #8, which I assume is accurate).

 

(ETA: And I didn't mean to say your post was wrong BC, just that absent rules addressing it, the NFL rules require a sweep).

Edited November 29, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[stevegrab]

No, see swammi's post above. The tie-breakers are different if it's 3 teams instead of 2.... It doesn't make sense to compare 2 teams in division, and the other one gets a free pass in that tie-breaker just for not being in the same division. It should be a moot factor, since not all tied parties are in the same division.... I see your logic, but with this situation, you have to throw divisions out, as it shows in Swammi's post with NFL tie breaker rules for 3 teams.

 

The only part wrong then about BC's post (assuming there's nothing in the rules to address this situation and you're gonig with NFL procedures), is that the rule states that you have to sweep both of the other parties to win that tie-breaker. Since no one did, you move on to the likely tie-breaker of total points (again, see post #8, which I assume is accurate).

 

 

Well I'm not sure Swammi's post has the full tie breaking rules, see this

 

According to that, dealing with a wild card, if 3 or more teams are involved, the first step is

1.Apply division tie breaker to eliminate all but the highest ranked club in each division prior to proceeding to step 2. The original seeding within a division upon application of the division tie breaker remains the same for all subsequent applications of the procedure that are necessary to identify the two Wild-Card participants.

2.Head-to-head sweep. (Applicable only if one club has defeated each of the others or if one club has lost to each of the others.)

 

Since the OP says they are competing for the last 2 playoff spots, I assume those are wild card and not division winners. That is why I feel the rules I am sighting apply, and it is how we are handling it this year. And why I talk about teams from within the same division, and the better of those 2 (according to division ranking) should advance.

[gbpfan1231]

For those above that say you first eliminate one of the two teams from the same division, that IMO is wrong. You are looking at all of the potential teams as a single group for wild card spots that are open to all divisions. Essentially, at this point division is completely irrelevant.

 

To the OP, it matters greatly on what your rules state. When they state H2H is the tiebreaker, do they clearly state the it requires a sweep for this criteria to be used as it is in the NFL, or is the intent that the team with the best head to head record of those being compared gets the first spot and then the process starts over to compare for the next wild card spot?

 

Assuming it does not state that a sweep is needed, then one could very easily argue that Team X gets the first wild card spot as they have a 2-1 record, giving them the best H2H record amongst the 3 teams. You then start back over and compare Team Y and Team Z. Team Y beat Team Z, thus Team Y gets the second wild card spot.

 

Now, if you do have it stated that a clean sweep is needed, you would go on to whatever the 2nd and 3rd tiebreakers are for your league.

 

 

 

Hopefully all of this helps demonstrate why the use of H2H as a tiebreaker, especially as the first tiebreaker, is a poor choice for fantasy football purposes.

This is exactly the issue being raised - Our rules only say head to head - nothing about clean sweep so the issue is being raised is it head to head winning %? if it is then there is a "true" winner for the team that is 2-1.

 

And I agree the rules are bad the way they are stated.

 

It looks like it is going to come down to points and then it is X and Z and the loser here is Y where he would have got in.

 

X is in either way and on paper has by far the worst team of the three and X is me

[delusions of grandeur]

Well I'm not sure Swammi's post has the full tie breaking rules, see this

 

According to that, dealing with a wild card, if 3 or more teams are involved, the first step is

1.Apply division tie breaker to eliminate all but the highest ranked club in each division prior to proceeding to step 2. The original seeding within a division upon application of the division tie breaker remains the same for all subsequent applications of the procedure that are necessary to identify the two Wild-Card participants.

2.Head-to-head sweep. (Applicable only if one club has defeated each of the others or if one club has lost to each of the others.)

 

Since the OP says they are competing for the last 2 playoff spots, I assume those are wild card and not division winners. That is why I feel the rules I am sighting apply, and it is how we are handling it this year. And why I talk about teams from within the same division, and the better of those 2 (according to division ranking) should advance.

Well, I stand corrected, and agree then....

 

What kind of shiz are you trying to pull here swammi?

[Big Country]

Can I now also throw out the idea that for the purposes of fantasy football, divisions and really silly.

 

And I admit that the majority of leagues that I am in have divisions.

 

My belief is that they are there for no reason other than "It's the way the NFL does it". Well, that makes sense for a real professional sports team where things like division rivalries mean lots of dollars, etc., but for fantasy purposes, they have little value other than to allow less deserving teams a road to the playoffs (though at times this is also true of the NFL) and to cause commissioners lots of headaches when determining "wild card" teams.

[otis29]

Can I now also throw out the idea that for the purposes of fantasy football, divisions and really silly.

 

And I admit that the majority of leagues that I am in have divisions.

 

My belief is that they are there for no reason other than "It's the way the NFL does it". Well, that makes sense for a real professional sports team where things like division rivalries mean lots of dollars, etc., but for fantasy purposes, they have little value other than to allow less deserving teams a road to the playoffs (though at times this is also true of the NFL) and to cause commissioners lots of headaches when determining "wild card" teams.

I enjoy it strictly for the comedy value at the draft when people find out who the other teams are in their division.

[stevegrab]

Can I now also throw out the idea that for the purposes of fantasy football, divisions and really silly.

 

And I admit that the majority of leagues that I am in have divisions.

 

My belief is that they are there for no reason other than "It's the way the NFL does it". Well, that makes sense for a real professional sports team where things like division rivalries mean lots of dollars, etc., but for fantasy purposes, they have little value other than to allow less deserving teams a road to the playoffs (though at times this is also true of the NFL) and to cause commissioners lots of headaches when determining "wild card" teams.

 

I don't think its just because the NFL does it, but because the vast majority of leagues (particularly those with head to head play) have divisions.

 

So I don't really think its silly. What is the alternative, how is a league would be structured without division (how is the schedule made, what determines playoff teams and seeding). As far as the comment about "less deserving" teams making the playoffs, other than an all play or total points league how do you resolve that?

 

Not being sarcastic, really curious as to what alternatives you (or others) see without division.

[detlef]

I don't think its just because the NFL does it, but because the vast majority of leagues (particularly those with head to head play) have divisions.

 

So I don't really think its silly. What is the alternative, how is a league would be structured without division (how is the schedule made, what determines playoff teams and seeding). As far as the comment about "less deserving" teams making the playoffs, other than an all play or total points league how do you resolve that?

 

Not being sarcastic, really curious as to what alternatives you (or others) see without division.

FWIW, I agree entirely with BC on this and do think it is largely because "that's how the NFL does it".

 

One alternative is to put everyone in one big batch. Top two seeds are the best H2H records, next two seeds are the highest point scores of the remaining teams. Or whatever version of that fits the amount of teams you want to advance. As far as unbalanced schedules, that's no different either way. Even if you play teams in your division twice and teams outside it once, you're still playing some teams more than others. And if there's any wildcard situation where two non-division winners are compared, that will still come into play. If one division has the two worst teams in the league in it, than the other teams in that division will get the advantage of playing those teams twice. No different than whomever plays the two worst teams twice in an open format.

[Big Country]

I don't think its just because the NFL does it, but because the vast majority of leagues (particularly those with head to head play) have divisions.

 

So I don't really think its silly. What is the alternative, how is a league would be structured without division (how is the schedule made, what determines playoff teams and seeding). As far as the comment about "less deserving" teams making the playoffs, other than an all play or total points league how do you resolve that?

 

Not being sarcastic, really curious as to what alternatives you (or others) see without division.

 

 

The league would be structured with no divisions. Basically all 8 or 10 or 12 or 16 teams in one pool. As for scheduling, that is largely dependent on league size, but either some teams play each other more than once, or, if desired, use dounle headers for a balanced schedule.

 

As detlef mentioned, you could easily have the top X number of teams based on record make it in, or use the hybrid approach that the high stakes leagues use in which the playoffs are a combination of the best records and highest point scorers getting in. For example, with FFPC, the 1st seed goes to best record, the 2nd seed goes to the team out of the remaining 11 that has the most points scored. The 3rd seed goes to the team out of the remaining 10 with the best record. And the 4th seed goes to the team out of the remaining 9 with the most points scored.

 

Using a system such as this keeps importance on the value of the weekly wins but also rewards teams that are consistently putting up points but perhapos faced bad luck in the scheduling. This year for example, the team I am co-owner of made the playoffs of the league despite having a 4-7 head to head record because we were one of the top scoring teams in the league, we just had one of this unfortunate years where we seemed to always be playing one of the top 2 scoring teams in a given week. On the flip side, a team that was fortunate and did not score very highly throughout the year but got lucky in the schedule and consistently faced teams on off weeks had a good record and also made the playoffs.

 

ETA: A 14-teamer works great in this setup where you play one game against every other team weeks 1-13 and have 6 teams making the playoffs week 14-16, with the top 2 seeds getting a bye in week 14. Could also easily do an 8 team league with 2 games against every team weeks 1-14, and top 4 making playoffs week 15-16.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Big Country

[Azazello1313]

No, see swammi's post above. The tie-breakers are different if it's 3 teams instead of 2.... It doesn't make sense to compare 2 teams in division, and the other one gets a free pass in that tie-breaker just for not being in the same division. It should be a moot factor, since not all tied parties are in the same division.... I see your logic, but with this situation, you have to throw divisions out, as it shows in Swammi's post with NFL tie breaker rules for 3 teams.

 

The only part wrong then about BC's post (assuming there's nothing in the rules to address this situation and you're gonig with NFL procedures), is that the rule states that you have to sweep both of the other parties to win that tie-breaker. Since no one did, you move on to the likely tie-breaker of total points (again, see post #8, which I assume is accurate).

 

(ETA: And I didn't mean to say your post was wrong BC, just that absent rules addressing it, the NFL rules require a sweep).

 

divisional record might be a good criteria for breaking ties when it comes to who wins the division....but it should not be a tiebreaker for wildcard spots, regardless of whether 2 or more of the tied teams are in the same division. it just doesn't make much sense.