Azazello1313 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 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 your three-way "head to head winning %" is a foolish construct with no value here. it's head-to-head, not head-to-head-to-head. why on earth should the fact that team X beat team Y twice give team X an advantage over team Z "head to head", when team Z beat team X head to head? the simple bottom line is that head to head record just cannot break the tie here, because each of the three teams has a head to head advantage over one of the other teams and a disadvantage against the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) 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. Ok, so if you have two teams with these records and points, you think team B should be a wild card, but if these were the top two teams in the division then team A should win the divsion (overall record div rec total points) A 8-5 4-2 1050 B 8-5 3-3 1100 This is why we use the division record in selecting the best team in each division to compare with teams in other divisions for wild card. And I believe it is the same reason the NFL does it. If you do not rank ahead of a team in your division, why should you make the playoffs ahead of them? Edited November 30, 2011 by stevegrab Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) Ok, so if you have two teams with these records and points, you think team B should be a wild card, but if these were the top two teams in the division then team A should win the divsion (overall record div rec total points) A 8-5 4-2 1050 B 8-5 3-3 1100 This is why we use the division record in selecting the best team in each division to compare with teams in other divisions for wild card. And I believe it is the same reason the NFL does it. If you do not rank ahead of a team in your division, why should you make the playoffs ahead of them? So lets say in your scenario that the team who gets the free pass on the "division" tie-breaker actually had a worse division record than the other teams, but doesn't have to face this tie-breaker just by virtue of another team winning the division rather than being the wild card (they may have actually even been tied too), while the 2 teams forced to do the division tie-breaker actually had better records than team A.... Then you'd be rewarding the team who did worse in his division, while punishing the teams who did better in their division, in an all-division race that doesn't have anything to do with the division race. I'm not quite sure I stated that right, but the point is that how you did versus your division has nothing to do with how you stack up with 3 random teams, regardless of what division they're in.... I think the NFL uses this tie-breaker for the similar reason that the NCAA refuses a playoff: to prevent over-representation from a conference/division by making it tough for 3 teams from a division to all make it, particularly when they play such drastically different non-division schedules from other ones in addition to their division schedules. The reasoning would seem far different than what's best for FF. Moreover, the reason why it doesn't make sense, is that you're applying a tie-breaker to a non-division race, that only includes the teams that are in-division.... It shouldn't matter if you did better in the division. This is a wildcard race where you're competing with those from all divisions, and so the truly fair way to do that is to make sure that every tie-breaker applies to all teams, not jsut the 2 that happened to be in the same one. It's extremely arbitrary to place importance on division in a race that encompasses and disregards all divisions. In short, the wildcard race is to put in the most deserving teams who did not win their division, not to continue that division race and use it to trump another race alltogether. Edited November 30, 2011 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 Ok, so if you have two teams with these records and points, you think team B should be a wild card, but if these were the top two teams in the division then team A should win the divsion (overall record div rec total points) A 8-5 4-2 1050 B 8-5 3-3 1100 This is why we use the division record in selecting the best team in each division to compare with teams in other divisions for wild card. And I believe it is the same reason the NFL does it. If you do not rank ahead of a team in your division, why should you make the playoffs ahead of them? If your playoff brackets are separated by division, I'd be fine with going to division records, etc. as a determinig factor for a playoff spot. Once you get to looking at wild card spots from across multiple divisions, then divisional aspects should be tossed aside and you look at the teams on their individual merits. While this may be different than the way the NFL does it, I still prefer it. The fact that a certain team performed better against a small subgroup of teams on random weeks of the season should not gie it an advantage when you are trying to compare from across all divisions. Lump the teams with the same record together and compare them on available common merits - overall record, points for, points against, coin flip, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 If your playoff brackets are separated by division, I'd be fine with going to division records, etc. as a determinig factor for a playoff spot. Once you get to looking at wild card spots from across multiple divisions, then divisional aspects should be tossed aside and you look at the teams on their individual merits. While this may be different than the way the NFL does it, I still prefer it. The fact that a certain team performed better against a small subgroup of teams on random weeks of the season should not gie it an advantage when you are trying to compare from across all divisions. Lump the teams with the same record together and compare them on available common merits - overall record, points for, points against, coin flip, etc. Common merits is a great way to put it, because it just seems silly to place top importance on something that's only important to a percentage of the parties involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 BC & delusions Good points, but our system is setup based on what we think makes the most sense. We believe that a team who is better than another team in their division is more deserving of being a wild card than the other team. You could argue that if we use division record to pick the best in each division, then we should also use it to pick the wild card. Or just eliminate division altogether. I felt the example I gave showing the 2 teams and how using division record for division winner but not wild card means opposite teams make the playoffs depending on whether the selection is for division winner or wild card. When people start mentioning things like "The fact that a certain team performed better against a small subgroup of teams on random weeks of the season should not gie it an advantage when you are trying to compare from across all divisions" I wonder what they think about using H2H and overall records or division records in the first place. Since those are all the result of random weeks of the season. I also think it is easier to understand this way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 all-play record and/or total points are without a doubt the preferable tiebreakers in any case. the playoffs should contain the strongest teams over the course of the season, not over one or two randomly chosen weeks. there's more of an argument for head-to-head tiebreakers in "real" sports as opposed to fantasy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) BC & delusions Good points, but our system is setup based on what we think makes the most sense. We believe that a team who is better than another team in their division is more deserving of being a wild card than the other team. You could argue that if we use division record to pick the best in each division, then we should also use it to pick the wild card. Or just eliminate division altogether. I felt the example I gave showing the 2 teams and how using division record for division winner but not wild card means opposite teams make the playoffs depending on whether the selection is for division winner or wild card. When people start mentioning things like "The fact that a certain team performed better against a small subgroup of teams on random weeks of the season should not gie it an advantage when you are trying to compare from across all divisions" I wonder what they think about using H2H and overall records or division records in the first place. Since those are all the result of random weeks of the season. I also think it is easier to understand this way. The point is that they're two different races. Yes, feel free to use division to determine the division race, because it applies to all parties involved... But when you're using a factor that only encompasses 2 of the 3 teams, and doesn't apply to all parties involved that you're measuring, then it's not fair that the other one gets a free pass because of random luck that a team in their division didn't slide into the tied race. Further, like I said, what if team A already lost the tie-breaker to the division leader, and is now getting a free pass as 1 of the 2 wildcard teams that could have a better division record then him, get undeservingly eliminated while he moves on... If anything it'd make more sense to argue that all parties get measured on division record, but with it being different teams in divisions, then it's not a " common merit" to measure them all on, in a race that frankly has nothing to do with the common merit of only 66% of the parties involved. Edited November 30, 2011 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) Haven't read through the thread, but here is something germane: this is the tiebreaking system the NFL used until they expanded to 4 4 Team Divisions in a 16 team conference. We began using them in my local, since this is what the NFL did for years with 3 division conferences, and since our league was 3 four team divisions this is what we use. To break a tie within a division: If, at the end of the regular season,two or more clubs in the same division finish with identical records, the following steps will be followed until a champion is determined. 7.2.1 Two Clubs: 1. Head-to-head (best won-lost-tied percentage in games between the clubs). 2. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the division. 3. Best net points in division games. 4. Best net points in all games. 5. Toughest Strength of Schedule (points scored against) 6. Best net touchdowns in all games. 7. Coin toss. 7.2.2 Three or more Clubs: Note: If two clubs remain tied after third or other clubs are eliminated during any step, tie breaker reverts to step 1 of the two-club format. 1. Head-to-head (best won-lost-tied percentage in games among the clubs). 2. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the division. 3. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games. 4. Best net points in division games. 5. Best net points in all games. 6. Strength of schedule(points scored against). 7. Best net touchdowns in all games. 8. Coin toss. 7.3 To break a tie for the wild-card team: If it is necessary to break ties to determine the wild-card the following steps will be taken. A - If the tied clubs are from the same division, apply division tie breaker. -or- B - If the tied clubs are from different divisions, apply the following steps. 7.3.1 Two clubs 1. Head-to-head. If the regular season meeting was a tie, proceed to... 2. Best net points in all games. 3. Toughest Strength of Schedule(who has most points scored against?) 4. Best net touchdowns in all games. 5. Coin toss. 7.3.2 Three Clubs from 3 Divisions Note: If two clubs remain tied after the third or other clubs are eliminated, tie breaker reverts to step 1 of applicable two-club format. 1. Apply division tie breaker to eliminate all but the highest ranked club in each division prior to proceeding to step 2. 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). 3. Best net points in all games. 4. Hardest Strength of Schedule(who has most points scored against?). 5. Best net touchdowns in all games. 6. Coin toss. Note: Only one club advances to the playoffs in any tie-breaking step. If two clubs remain tied in any tie-breaker step after all other clubs have been eliminated, the procedure reverts to step 1 of the two-club format to determine the winner. It at least shows what the NFL did and how it weighted games. Note things like "common games" means less game in the NFL since schedules never matched, but in our league where you play 3 division opponents twice, and everyone else once 'common games' becomes 'all games' for instance. Enjoy. You might not like it but it worked for the NFL for almost 30 years. Edited November 30, 2011 by Pope Flick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 (edited) Haven't read through the thread, but here is something germane: this is the tiebreaking system the NFL used until they expanded to 4 4 Team Divisions in a 16 team conference. We began using them in my local, since this is what the NFL did for years with 3 division conferences, and since our league was 3 four team divisions this is what we use. It at least shows what the NFL did and how it weighted games. Note things like "common games" means less game in the NFL since schedules never matched, but in our league where you play 3 division opponents twice, and everyone else once 'common games' becomes 'all games' for instance. Enjoy. You might not like it but it worked for the NFL for almost 30 years. We had established earlier, that absent other rules, that this would be the correct way to resolve it (by division first), if you were going with NFL procedures. But I think the NFL has reasoning that doesn't quite jive with FF leagues: 1) Much like the NCAA, the NFL has an interest in not having over-representation, with 3 teams from a division making up half the playoff teams for the conference. Just like how the NCAA does regional bowl games, the goal is to have as much interest from as many different regions as possible. There is no similar dilemma in FF with over-representation from arbitrary divisions. 2) NFL teams face completely different schedules from those outside their division, while facing near-identical to the ones in their division. So it is a more sound indicator to use this prior to the WC tie-breaker, since you're truly comparing apples to apples. But in most FF leagues, even though you play your division rivals twice to help determine a winner, most still play all (or nearly all) outside their division once, and thus to me, it then makes sense to take their schedules in their entirety because they are not that markedly different like they are in the NFL. I guess that #2 may imply that using division record first might be appropriate, since the 2 division teams do face a near-identical schedule, but I think it's notable that the schedules are much more similar for everyone than in the NFL. Thus, if I'm making rules for my FF league, I would prefer that the tie-breakers encompass "common merits" of all the parties involved, since they've played (largely) all the same opponents, but just differing numbers of times. And while we're talking about what I'd do, I agree with BC's earlier remarks that H2H is not the strongest tie-breaker, and further that points scored is the most accurate measure of season-long strength IMO, and should be the first tie-breaker before going into this mess. Edited November 30, 2011 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 I'm following this with continued interest as we changed to 3 divisions of 4 teams (from 2 div of 6). In our old setup, all teams competing for wild card were in the same division, so using those tie breakers made sense. We didn't iron out all the rules and went to the new structure. So we looked a little at what the NFL does and thought that made sense. In the off season I'll go over this all with my co-commissioner and see if the points raised in this thread merit any changes (that we'll discuss with the owners and have a vote). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.