Playoff tie breaker rule interpretation advice requested

[theeohiostate]

In one of the BOTH leagues I co-commish , we have a tie-breaker rule in place that reads as follows

 

* Head to head results will be the first tie-breaker (applies to 2-way tie or a 3-way tie if a clear winner is

evident)

 

Teams A,B and C finished the year with 7-7 records and they are fighting for the last 2 playoff spots

who goes ?

 

Here are the results of their H2H matchups

 

Team A went 1-1 against team B , and 1-0 against team C - H2H record 2-1 against other 2 teams

Team B went 1-1 against team A , and 0-1 against team C - H2H record 1-2 against other 2 teams

Team C went 0-1 against team A , and 1-0 against team B - H2H record 1-1 against other 2 teams

 

It's my opinion Team A is the "clear and evident" winner of the 3-way H2H tie breaker rule as written under my interpretation.

 

The other co-commish believes that there was no clear winner in the 3-way tie , and we should go to total points leader from the 3.

 

Niether myself nor the other commish have a dog in this race, but would like to know from others how you read and understand this rule. If I'm missing something then i apologize to the other commish, but seems cut and dry to me ??

 

TIA

Edited December 5, 2012 by theeohiostate

[Trojanmojo]

To me, if the 1st tie-breaker is going to be H2H results, the league needs to have a completely balanced schedule. Otherwise, total points should be used. The league rules are flawed and should be fixed in the offseason. Team A wins here but it sucks b/c Team C had to go 2-0 to win this tie-breaker...a clear disadvantage.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Trojanmojo

[lkirc]

Team B was 1-1 against team A. No evident winner, so it goes to total points.

[Caveman_Nick]

Clear winner would indicate that one team had winning records against all others involved IMO.

[LosGatosEnFuegos]

* Head to head results will be the first tie-breaker (applies to 2-way tie or a 3-way tie if a clear winner is

evident)

 

 

No clear winner is evident. (That this is being debated at all probably means "evident" is not a word that applies to the situation.)

 

For this to be a fair comparison, each team should have a statistically equal chance of winning AT THE OUTSET of competition. Team C did not have the opportunity to win 3 games. Teams A and B did. No winner is evident.

[Delicious_bass]

To me, if the 1st tie-breaker is going to be H2H results, the league needs to have a completely balanced schedule. Otherwise, total points should be used. The league rules are flawed and should be fixed in the offseason. Team A wins here but it sucks b/c Team C had to go 2-0 to win this tie-breaker...a clear disadvantage.

 

This

[The Grey Pilgrim]

I agree with TOS's interpretation. I would also use a 3 way grid to determine each team's H2H record among the 3 teams involved. Since Team A has the best H2H record at 2-1, I would use that as the tiebreaker under this type of rule. Occasionally, I use this method with multiple teams involved and more than one team has the same best record (say 2-1). When that happens, I move to the next tiebreaker (Points For).

 

But since Team A had the best record in the H2H grid, Team A would win the league's tiebreaker. The fact that there was not a balanced schedule would not change the results of the H2H grid, IMO. No team involved had a pre-determined advantage based on the unbalanced schedule.

[Thews40]

* Head to head results will be the first tie-breaker (applies to 2-way tie or a 3-way tie if a clear winner is

evident)

 

The operative word being "clear" in the above, it's not clear... total points.

[The Grey Pilgrim]

From my perspective 2-1 is clearly better than 1-2 and 1-1. That would be all i needed.

 

I am no big fan of the H2H tiebreaker, I think it makes more sense in real football. Points for is a better first tie-breaker IMO. But, if a league chooses to use H2H as their tiebreaker, I would utilize as TOS did under this circumstance.

[i_am_the_swammi]

From my perspective 2-1 is clearly better than 1-2 and 1-1. That would be all i needed.

 

I am no big fan of the H2H tiebreaker, I think it makes more sense in real football. Points for is a better first tie-breaker IMO. But, if a league chooses to use H2H as their tiebreaker, I would utilize as TOS did under this circumstance.

 

 

So you want to penalize Team C because they had the misfortune only playing 2 games against the other two teams, thus preventing them the opportunity to go 2-1?

 

No way Team C should be eliminated from this because of a scheduling issue....this clearly needs to go to total points.

[Eagle2003]

So you want to penalize Team C because they had the misfortune only playing 2 games against the other two teams, thus preventing them the opportunity to go 2-1?

 

No way Team C should be eliminated from this because of a scheduling issue....this clearly needs to go to total points.

 

 

I agree with this. Since there wasn't an equal number of games played among all the teams, Team C is at a disadvantage, so it NEEDS to go to Total Points to be fair.

[Big Country]

Another reason why H2H has no place as a tiebreaker in fantasy football.

 

IMO, the rule is obviously poorly worded as "clear winner is evident" is impossible to easily define.

 

That being said, the most common application of H2H is that the best combined H2H record advances first, regardless of games played between the teams. Fair or not, it is by far the most common application of the rule. In this case, Team A gets the first playoff spot with their 2-1 (.667 Win Pct.) in H2H games. Neither of the other teams has a win pct. matching that, thus it could very fairly be stated that they are the "clear" winner in this case. Nowhere does the rule state that a sweep is needed to take the tiebreak, so I will stand by my opinion of falling back to FF norms on this type of tiebreaker.

 

The second spot is then a comparison of Team B vs. Team C. Team C beat Team B in H2H play and thus gets the second playoff spot.

 

 

Again, just my opinion based on the most common application of the H2H tiebreaker rule.

[XFlash]

Agree that the rule is flawed.

 

Falling back to total points is not unreasonable.

 

You can put to a leage vote and go with the majority. Commish should be excluded and only used as a tie breaker if there are even number or owners.

 

Otherwise, go with the rule as stated and Team A wins.

Edited December 5, 2012 by XFlash

[HowboutthemCowboys]

In one of the BOTH leagues I co-commish , we have a tie-breaker rule in place that reads as follows

 

* Head to head results will be the first tie-breaker (applies to 2-way tie or a 3-way tie if a clear winner is

evident)

 

 

 

 

 

 

no idea how you can claim a 'clear winner is evident' with these H2H records

 

 

 

So you want to penalize Team C because they had the misfortune only playing 2 games against the other two teams, thus preventing them the opportunity to go 2-1?

 

No way Team C should be eliminated from this because of a scheduling issue....this clearly needs to go to total points.

 

 

this

Edited December 5, 2012 by HowboutthemCowboys

[Grogansghost]

I agree with everyone who points out that if you only look at the head to head records:

 

2-1

1-2

1-1

 

only one of those teams has a winning record.

 

Ideally the schedule would've been balanced - but I don't agree the 3rd team was at a disadvantage - he could've lost his third game.

 

However - to stop at those two points ignores the 2nd part of the rule. Trying to figure out intent, I think the "clear" and "evident" part means that they want a winner to have a winning record over both of the other tied teams. Otherwise, the rule would just read as the H2H tie-breaker between 2 or 3 teams.

 

I think we all agree the rule could've been clearer. I guess you either go with the strictest interpretation, or you try to get the league to agree on what the intent was.

[theeohiostate]

thanks for the responses guys

 

the commish made a ruling that the tie breaker rule as pertaining to this situation shows no clear winner, and while i disagree , i can live with it provided we strike this rule in the off season and rewrite it more clearly

 

H2H winner was team A in my opinion , better record, better winning % and they won the H2H game against the 1-1 Team C

 

In the end Team B and Team C both made the playoffs and Team A was left out of postseason play due to overall points , so why even have a 3-way tie breaker in the rules to begin with , when it's useless as seen from what happened here.

 

Team C is fine with the decision, but to be honest, he's a better man than I , I would have been protesting relentlessly had I been involved

Edited December 5, 2012 by theeohiostate

[delusions of grandeur]

Ideally the schedule would've been balanced - but I don't agree the 3rd team was at a disadvantage - he could've lost his third game.

 

Or he could have won it, that's where the disadvantage comes in. Neither you or me can say which it would have been, but it's a disadvantage because he didn't get the same opportunity, and thus had to go undefeated in his two games, while the other teams only had to go 2-1 if he didn't.

 

So maybe a better way to say it is potential disadvantage, or rather lack of the same opportunity as his competitors which forced his record to be held to a higher standard than the others.

 

Plain and simple, if teams don't play eachother equal amounts of times, then it just leaves far too much up to interpretation and thus bias, which is why I agree with the commish of his league to just move on to a more sound tie-breaker.

 

Further, like many here, this is why I think H2H is a flawed tie-breaker with only the potential to add more luck and confusion into the equation. You never hear leagues with decimal points scored as a tie-breaker asking these questions. The teams who score the most should have first rights anyway, IMO...

[stevegrab]

if a clear winner is evident)

 

Problem is this part of the rule is ambiguous and open to interpretation. What is a clear winner. A clear sweep of all teams? The best record in H2H amongst the 3 teams?

 

Each team won and lostsome games against the others, so how is there a clear winner, because one team is 2-1 vs. 1-2 of others.

[HowboutthemCowboys]

thanks for the responses guys

 

the commish made a ruling that the tie breaker rule as pertaining to this situation shows no clear winner, and while i disagree , i can live with it provided we strike this rule in the off season and rewrite it more clearly

 

H2H winner was team A in my opinion , better record, better winning % and they won the H2H game against the 1-1 Team C

 

In the end Team B and Team C both made the playoffs and Team A was left out of postseason play due to overall points , so why even have a 3-way tie breaker in the rules to begin with , when it's useless as seen from what happened here.

 

Team C is fine with the decision, but to be honest, he's a better man than I , I would have been protesting relentlessly had I been involved

 

 

1st league I ever played in had H2H as first tiebreaker UNLESS THERE WERE MORE THAN 2 TEAMS TIED...fwiw

[Gopher]

For what it's worth, I've dealt with the same thing this year, and agree with the majority here. For it to be "clear", I think you have to be on a level playing field... Either balanced schedule (same number of games) between the teams involved, or a situation where one team was swept by both of the others. If there is any room for argument that it's not clear (unbalanced, etc.), you have to move on to total points.

 

That said, the rules (in your league and in mine) can certainly be cleaned up to avoid this kind of thing. Nothing should have to be left open for interpretation.

[electricrelish]

For what it's worth, I've dealt with the same thing this year, and agree with the majority here. For it to be "clear", I think you have to be on a level playing field... Either balanced schedule (same number of games) between the teams involved, or a situation where one team was swept by both of the others. If there is any room for argument that it's not clear (unbalanced, etc.), you have to move on to total points.

 

That said, the rules (in your league and in mine) can certainly be cleaned up to avoid this kind of thing. Nothing should have to be left open for interpretation.

 

I agree. It should be written airtight like the Bible where there are no questions whatsoever.

Edited December 5, 2012 by electricrelish

[Grogansghost]

Or he could have won it, that's where the disadvantage comes in. Neither you or me can say which it would have been, but it's a disadvantage because he didn't get the same opportunity, and thus had to go undefeated in his two games, while the other teams only had to go 2-1 if he didn't.

 

So maybe a better way to say it is potential disadvantage, or rather lack of the same opportunity as his competitors which forced his record to be held to a higher standard than the others.

 

Plain and simple, if teams don't play eachother equal amounts of times, then it just leaves far too much up to interpretation and thus bias, which is why I agree with the commish of his league to just move on to a more sound tie-breaker.

 

Further, like many here, this is why I think H2H is a flawed tie-breaker with only the potential to add more luck and confusion into the equation. You never hear leagues with decimal points scored as a tie-breaker asking these questions. The teams who score the most should have first rights anyway, IMO...

 

 

Thinking about it some more I realized you're right. I was thinking only in terms of how team C would have an equal chance of losing his 3rd game as winning it - which is true, but ignores the difference in probability of winning 2 out of 2 versus 2 out of 3 games - 25% versus 50%.

 

Which goes back to everyone's point that H2H is especially problematic when schedules aren't balanced.