Playoff seeding

[snotbubbler]

In our 12 team league the 3 div winners and the next 3 best records (wildcard) make the playoffs every year. This year the 3 wildcards all have a record of 8-6 and all have a record of 1-1 against the other 2 wildcards. exp; team A beat team B, team B beat team C, team C beat team A. Our seeding tie breakers are head-to-head, then total points.

My question is once you determine all teams involved have the same record do you go strictly by total points. Or do you seperate one team and then go back to the first tie breaker of head-head.

Thanks

[detlef]

This is one of the many reasons I prefer just going straight to total pts. And, in this case, once the silly H2H deal yields nothing, I would absolutely go to total pts.

[loaf]

we then go to best record against like opponents. if that still results in a tie, then it goes to total points.

[Redfish]

We fought through a number of scenarios in the 80's, but by 1995, we went solely with overall record, then total pts. Never been an issue since. Very clean.

[detlef]

we then go to best record against like opponents. if that still results in a tie, then it goes to total points.

 

Does every team not play every other team at least once in your league? If so, wouldn't the record against common opponents be the same as the overall record? I suppose you'd have to back out games against each other since, if you play me and I don't play me, then neither you or I are common opponents. However, given that they're all tied in those games against each other, and they're all tied in total wins and losses, they'd also be tied in common opponents.

[stevegrab]

Based on your rules you have to go to total points. Why would you me selecting two of the 3 teams and comparing them again using H2H? What in your rules says you should do that?

 

3 teams, overall record is tied, H2H record is tied (each is 1-1 against the other 2), so next is total points

 

We eliminated head to head some years ago, and do use division record to break ties (only when comparing teams in the same division, after a tie in overall record, before considering total points). Our rules also state clearly that we follow NFL tie breaking procedures with respect to wild cards, meaning you determine the best team from each division, then compare to the others.

Edited December 12, 2012 by stevegrab

[detlef]

Based on your rules you have to go to total points. Why would you me selecting two of the 3 teams and comparing them again using H2H? What in your rules says you should do that?

 

3 teams, overall record is tied, H2H record is tied (each is 1-1 against the other 2), so next is total points

 

We eliminated head to head some years ago, and do use division record to break ties (only when comparing teams in the same division, after a tie in overall record, before considering total points). Our rules also state clearly that we follow NFL tie breaking procedures with respect to wild cards, meaning you determine the best team from each division, then compare to the others.

 

I've often been curious about using the rationale about following the NFL system considering how different the dynamic of actually meeting someone on the field of play is from what happens in FF.

 

In the NFL, for instance, if one team beats another when they played and both have the same record, it's pretty damned clear who should get the nod. But why should that be the case in FF where you are absolutely powerless to affect your opponents score, launch a gritty comeback or "choke away" a lead? In reality, you're just putting up the most points you can and then being assigned, at random, a number to measure that effort against to determine whether it was enough for a win or not.

[Caveman_Nick]

I've often been curious about using the rationale about following the NFL system considering how different the dynamic of actually meeting someone on the field of play is from what happens in FF.

 

In the NFL, for instance, if one team beats another when they played and both have the same record, it's pretty damned clear who should get the nod. But why should that be the case in FF where you are absolutely powerless to affect your opponents score, launch a gritty comeback or "choke away" a lead? In reality, you're just putting up the most points you can and then being assigned, at random, a number to measure that effort against to determine whether it was enough for a win or not.

 

 

If you play HTH these things factor in to the standings every week. Trying to distill those factors from playoff seeding is against the spirit of playing in a HTH league IMO. In any HTH league I am in I prefer HTH to be the first tie breaker, because HTH leagues are by their nature very random. I miss and make playoffs every year because of the ebb and flow of my schedule.

 

If I wanted a league that decided things on points I would play in a points league (I do play in one, but without a playoff system).

[detlef]

If you play HTH these things factor in to the standings every week. Trying to distill those factors from playoff seeding is against the spirit of playing in a HTH league IMO. In any HTH league I am in I prefer HTH to be the first tie breaker, because HTH leagues are by their nature very random. I miss and make playoffs every year because of the ebb and flow of my schedule.

 

If I wanted a league that decided things on points I would play in a points league (I do play in one, but without a playoff system).

 

I've heard that argument before and I understand the rationale behind it.

 

I would say this though. I think the primary reason for H2H is because it's more fun. You've got something to root for each and every week, quite possibly on Monday in particular. In a total points league, that is lessened. You also don't get to talk chight to the friend you're playing that week. So, I get why H2H is the preferred system in general.

 

However, there's certainly an argument that total points is a better determiner (even if not a perfect one) of who has a better team, which is why the high dollar leagues often use alternating best record, highest points to determine who makes the play-offs or gets paid.

 

With that in mind, using H2H as the primary criteria, but then going to total pts, sort of throws a bone (albeit less of one than actually awarding a spot based on points alone) to the camp that feels those who score a lot should be rewarded over those who simply get lucky enough to be facing a guy with an off week. If, for instance two teams are tied and one of whom scored way less than the other, it could be said that he's lucky to even be tied to begin with, but unfortunately for him, not lucky enough to eek out another low scoring win so as to have a better record than the other team.

[stevegrab]

det,

 

In the instance we are following NFL rules (for selecting wild card teams) it makes perfect sense. You pick the best team from each division, then compare them to the others. For us that means using division record as a tie breaker, and this year that could have been significant with a 3 way tie at 2nd in one division with a 6-7 record, but one team 4-2 in division, while the others were 2-4 (but with higher points). If you just threw all of the non division winners into one pot and picked the best for wild card that division record would be tossed out (you don't use a div/conf record when comparing teams in diff divisions). If I'm better than you to win the division, then I should be better than you for making the playoffs in general. Doesn't seem right to us to have the 3rd place team in a division get a wild card over the 2nd place team.

 

Our league has tried to mimic the NFL where possible, and where we feel it makes sense. In terms of applying tie breakers for playoffs we feel that works. And we eliminated H2H mostly because we felt it didn't fit well and was hard to implement between multiple teams.

Edited December 12, 2012 by stevegrab

[detlef]

det,

 

In the instance we are following NFL rules (for selecting wild card teams) it makes perfect sense. You pick the best team from each division, then compare them to the others. For us that means using division record as a tie breaker, and this year that could have been significant with a 3 way tie at 2nd in one division with a 6-7 record, but one team 4-2 in division, while the others were 2-4 (but with higher points). If you just threw all of the non division winners into one pot and picked the best for wild card that division record would be tossed out (you don't use a div/conf record when comparing teams in diff divisions). If I'm better than you to win the division, then I should be better than you for making the playoffs in general. Doesn't seem right to us to have the 3rd place team in a division get a wild card over the 2nd place team.

 

Our league has tried to mimic the NFL where possible, and where we feel it makes sense. In terms of applying tie breakers for playoffs we feel that works. And we eliminated H2H mostly because we felt it didn't fit well and was hard to implement between multiple teams.

 

Well, for starters, I'm also not a fan of divisions. In fact, the only reason why I think they exist in the real game is to create rivarlies (often regional) and thus more fan insterest. The only times I've ever played FF in divisions, they were basically chosen at random, so that part didn't fly. I suppose, over time, if you had the same guys in the same divisions, every year, you might develop this. But, given the additional layer of "unfairness" they actually add to standing in the way of picking the most deserving teams to win the jack, I don't see how it's worth it.

[loaf]

Does every team not play every other team at least once in your league? If so, wouldn't the record against common opponents be the same as the overall record? I suppose you'd have to back out games against each other since, if you play me and I don't play me, then neither you or I are common opponents. However, given that they're all tied in those games against each other, and they're all tied in total wins and losses, they'd also be tied in common opponents.

 

You would think but no. 2 Divisions and you play your Division twice, other Division once. There's usually going to be someone that is 3-0, 2-1, 1-2, 0-3

Forgot about the 0-1 and 1-0 folks as well.

It's really not hard to figure out. Takes me about 10 minutes each Season. There's only been talk of changing to total points when the guy that loses out has more points than the guy that got in.

I like total points myself, it would save me 10 minutes a year, lol but I also think points = better team. I can't get the majority to agree with me, however.

Edited December 12, 2012 by loaf

[detlef]

You would think but no. 2 Divisions and you play your Division twice, other Division once. There's usually going to be someone that is 3-0, 2-1, 1-2, 0-3

Forgot about the 0-1 and 1-0 folks as well.

It's really not hard to figure out. Takes me about 10 minutes each Season. There's only been talk of changing to total points when the guy that loses out has more points than the guy that got in.

I like total points myself, it would save me 10 minutes a year, lol but I also think points = better team. I can't get the majority to agree with me, however.

 

I think we have a different definition of "common opponents". What you're describing seems like H2H with how it pertains to more than 2 teams. I assumed that everyone had the same record in those games which is why you were going to the next criteria, being "common opponents" as in, the teams that everyone who is being considered in the tiebreak all played. In the NFL, that means something because you don't play everyone. Therefor, 3 teams may have only 4 or 5 games against the same teams. In FF, however, where everyone plays everyone, not so much.

[stevegrab]

Well, for starters, I'm also not a fan of divisions. In fact, the only reason why I think they exist in the real game is to create rivarlies (often regional) and thus more fan insterest. The only times I've ever played FF in divisions, they were basically chosen at random, so that part didn't fly. I suppose, over time, if you had the same guys in the same divisions, every year, you might develop this. But, given the additional layer of "unfairness" they actually add to standing in the way of picking the most deserving teams to win the jack, I don't see how it's worth it.

 

 

We tried to do fixed dvisions to build rivalries but that failed to pass a vote. We used to do our divisions randomly, but now we assign them based on the ending order of the teams, with team who fnished 1-4-7-10 in one divisions, 2-5-8-11 and 3-6-9-12 in the others, basically to spread out the "good teams" (5 man keeper).

[detlef]

We tried to do fixed dvisions to build rivalries but that failed to pass a vote. We used to do our divisions randomly, but now we assign them based on the ending order of the teams, with team who fnished 1-4-7-10 in one divisions, 2-5-8-11 and 3-6-9-12 in the others, basically to spread out the "good teams" (5 man keeper).

 

Just curious why you do division to begin with. It looks like you shuffle them in an attempt to undo one of the things that's wrong with them, that being having too many of the good teams in one. However, even that is limited because you can't be certain from one year to the next.

 

So, again, just trying to figure out why you have them.

[stevegrab]

Just curious why you do division to begin with. It looks like you shuffle them in an attempt to undo one of the things that's wrong with them, that being having too many of the good teams in one. However, even that is limited because you can't be certain from one year to the next.

 

So, again, just trying to figure out why you have them.

 

 

We've always had divisions going back to our first season about 20 years ago. It just seemed to make sense, most leagues did that at the time, and the NFL has divisions.

 

Gettting rules changed in our league is very difficult as too many owners only think about how it affects their team, and what they want, not whether it is good for the league. Not sure that we've ever discussed getting rid of divisions, but I can gaurantee it would be not go over well.

 

The changes we made recently (to have divisions made up based on finishing order instead of random) was a compromise during discussions to do fixed divisions. (People were afraid that it would stack certain divisions with good teams, making it tough for those in the bottom of that division to do well.) The one positive of the new structure (and something we were trying to do) is that now we know when the season ends what division you will be in next year. So when it comes to off season trades, you know if you're trading with a team in your division.

[loaf]

yeah, my bad. I meant H2H

[Big Country]

Back to the actual question posed rather than go off on another diatribe about what methods of tiebreak are or are not fairer, in many leagues, and I believe this is also true in the NFL rules, once the tie has been broken between 3 or more teams and the top seed is determined, you start back over at the beginning of the tiebreak process, thus would go to H2H for the remaining 2 teams, and if they tied on the season, move on to total points. If they didn't tie in H2H, then the team with the better H2H record gets the next playoff spot.

[delusions of grandeur]

Well, for starters, I'm also not a fan of divisions. In fact, the only reason why I think they exist in the real game is to create rivarlies (often regional) and thus more fan insterest. The only times I've ever played FF in divisions, they were basically chosen at random, so that part didn't fly. I suppose, over time, if you had the same guys in the same divisions, every year, you might develop this. But, given the additional layer of "unfairness" they actually add to standing in the way of picking the most deserving teams to win the jack, I don't see how it's worth it.

 

So, again, just trying to figure out why you have them.

 

 

I'm with you that I don't think divisional record is a good tie-breaker, but I'm still a fan of divisions for a couple reasons:

 

Division winner gets a playoff spot for winning the division, and since you play everyone in your division twice, then it doubles the weight of the significance of those games. Thus divisional matchups can greatly determine who wins the division, and really overall if you're dropping games to teams in your division.... Losing twice to my brother this year actually kept me out of the playoffs (which as you said it does also contribute to rivalries, why we try each year to set divisions with teams who know eachother).

 

Why I don't like it (or divisional H2H even) as a tie-breaker is that you still may play all the other teams 7 or 8 times out of 13 or 14 games in many cases. This isn't like college football where the majority of games are played in division, the majority are played out of division, and often against over twice as many teams.

 

I don't like any tie-breaker that reduces season-long performance to just a handful of games deciding it. You're already at the mercy of the randomness of the schedule enough without adding more significance to when you randomly face other teams.

 

As has been echoed here many times, total points is just so much more of a sound tie-breaker, helping to ensure the strongest teams are represented as best they can.

 

(Edited to eliminate redundancy)

Edited December 12, 2012 by delusions of grandeur

[stevegrab]

I'm with you that I don't think divisional record is a good tie-breaker, but I'm still a fan of divisions for a couple reasons:

 

...SNIP...

 

You make good points, from our league's view it boils down to this, we use division record as the first tie breaker within division to determine who wins the division. So we feel it is just as fair to use it to decide on the 2nd (3/4) best team in each division when determine wild cards. If I'm 2nd in my division and you are 3rd, I should make the playoffs before you. I know some will disagree, but that is our reasoning.

[detlef]

Plenty of fine points...

 

I could understand divisions if you could actually create things like brother on brother feuds and things like that. Because that would seem fun.

 

I can't for the life of me, however, understand why anyone would have divisions for divisions sake, if there was no on-going battles created.

 

I mean, unless you've got a huge league where you can't play everyone at least once or something like that. But, for leagues of 12 or less, I just don't see the point, unless of course to create rivalries.

[snotbubbler]

Back to the actual question posed rather than go off on another diatribe about what methods of tiebreak are or are not fairer, in many leagues, and I believe this is also true in the NFL rules, once the tie has been broken between 3 or more teams and the top seed is determined, you start back over at the beginning of the tiebreak process, thus would go to H2H for the remaining 2 teams, and if they tied on the season, move on to total points. If they didn't tie in H2H, then the team with the better H2H record gets the next playoff spot.

 

Thanks for the answer BC. I don't know exactly where everyone else was going with this. The answere kind of went off on a tangent. Your answer is exactly the way I think it should be decided as well. Any one else have an opinion?