Somebody please help me sort this out

[rajncajn]

Our results go by overall record first, then head-to-head then points. We have 3 teams tied with an 8-5 record. Team A beat Team C, Team C beat Team B. Team A & B are tied head-to-head. The points go in the order of Team B, Team A, Team C.

[Schleprock]

It appears that Team C is out of the division. Because every team didn't play each other the same number of times (both A & B only played team C once, but each other twice), you have to throw out the H2H tiebreaker and go to points. Therefore, your playoff seeds should give B 1, A 2, C 3.

 

Forgive me if I made a mistake in assuming that C was from a different division. Doesn't change the procedure, however.

[Ursa Majoris]

Since no team has been beaten by all the others, you have to go straight to points, IMO. If one team had been beaten by both the others, you could eliminate that team, then go to head to head between the remaining two.

 

I'm dealing with a three or four way tie right now (depending on MNF), with only one playoff place up for grabs, and we have head to head as our first tiebreaker.

[CaptainHook]

Team A DID beat both teams. They are 1-0 against C. They are 1-1 against B.

 

Team B lost to C, and went 1-1 against A.

 

Team C lost to team A, and beat team B.

 

Because Team A beat both teams once, they are the number 1 seed..

 

Since Team C beat Team B, Team C is the number 2 seed.

[Easy n Dirty]

Hard to respond without knowing what your league rules are...but I guess if your league rules spoke to this, then you wouldn't be asking the question.

 

I agree with the previous 2 posts - H2H is used only if it establishes a clear-cut winner or a clear-cut loser. If not, proceed to the next tiebreaker and rank them accordingly.

 

One more point - from what I understand, the NFL would do it as follows: first you pick one team from each division, based on your tiebreaker procedures (best record, then H2H, then total points? do you use division record to break ties within the same division?). The 2 or 3 teams (depending on number of divisions) that emerge from this step are then stacked up against one another until one team is chosen. After that team is chosen (as a wildcard, or for seeding purposes), then you go back to step 1. In your case, and assuming that division record is not being used as a tiebreaker, this may be inconsequential.

[Easy n Dirty]

Hard to respond without knowing what your league rules are...but I guess if your league rules spoke to this, then you wouldn't be asking the question.

 

I agree with the previous 2 posts (edit - Capt Hook snuck one in there.  I agree with the 2 guys before that and disagree with captain Hook's resolution)- H2H is used only if it establishes a clear-cut winner or a clear-cut loser.  If not, proceed to the next tiebreaker and rank them accordingly.

 

One more point - from what I understand, the NFL would do it as follows:  first you pick one team from each division, based on your tiebreaker procedures (best record, then H2H, then total points?  do you use division record to break ties within the same division?).  The 2 or 3 teams (depending on number of divisions) that emerge from this step are then stacked up against one another until one team is chosen.  After that team is chosen (as a wildcard, or for seeding purposes), then you go back to step 1.  In your case, and assuming that division record is not being used as a tiebreaker, this may be inconsequential.

 

595766[/snapback]

 

 

 

[KevinL]

Most head to head rules specify that these are for resolving ties between 2 teams only.

 

I would use this and go to total points.

 

Total points is the fairer tiebreaker anyways as you really have no control over the # of points your opponent scores in any given week.

[Marauders11]

The way I figure it is as follows.

 

TEAM "A" beat Team C, and Team B, while also losing to Team B- that gives them a record in these games (and these games are all that matter right now) of 2-1.

 

TEAM "B" lost to Team C, and split with Team A, giving them a record of 1-2

 

TEAM C lost to Team A, and beat Team B giving them a record of 1-1.

 

Therefore points DO NOT come into play:

 

Team A is #1 Seed

Team C is #2 Seed

Team B is #3 Seed

 

Simple- right!?

 

Edited December 6, 2004 by Marauders11

[Schleprock]

The way I figure it is as follows.

 

TEAM "A" beat Team C, and Team B, while also losung to Team B- that gicves them a records in these games of 2-1.

 

TEAM "B" lost to Team C, and split with Team A, giving them a record of 1-2

 

TEAM C lost to Team A, and beat Team B giving them a record of 1-1.

 

Therefore points DO NOT come into play:

 

Team A is #1 Seed

Team C is #2 Seed

Team B is #3 Seed

 

Simple- right!?

 

595776[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Team C is being unfairly punished for not playing the same number of games against the competition. Total points makes everyone happier (not really). Much simpler, right?

Edited December 6, 2004 by Schleprock

[CaptainHook]

Marauder and I agree.

 

Team C is not being unfairly punished. They had there chance by playing both A and B. They lost one of those games.

Edited December 6, 2004 by CaptainHook

[Marauders11]

Team C is being unfairly punished for not playing the same number of games against the competition.    Total points makes everyone happier (not really). Much simpler, right?

 

595779[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

He stated that his tie breaking rules were clear:

 

#1 Overall Record

#2 Head 2 Head

#3 Total Points

 

You can stop at #2 because the ties have been resolved.

 

Doesn't matter the number of games they played- record versus selected opponents is what is being considered here- Team C should have faired better in those key games- they have nothing to complain about.

Edited December 6, 2004 by Marauders11

[Schleprock]

Captain and Marauders, I do see your point. It's just that because of the differing number of games played, it's going to be much more difficult for the commish to get everyone to agree. The only thing all three have in common is that they started players every week in the attempt to score the most points. They couldn't control the schedule. I don't see a need to unfairly punish team B (your way) because they played an extra game, or Team C (your way) because they didn't.

 

Just my opinion. This is exactly why we've written specific rules into our charter.

[Marauders11]

Captain and Marauders, I do see your point.  It's just that because of the differing number of games played, it's going to be much more difficult for the commish to get everyone to agree.  The only thing all three have in common is that they started  players every week in the attempt to score the most points.  They couldn't control the schedule.  I don't see a need to unfairly punish team B (your way) because they played an extra game, or Team C (your way) because they didn't. 

 

Just my opinion.  This is exactly why we've written specific rules into our charter.

 

595790[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Then the #2 tie breaker shouldn't be head to head records. Since it is there is no debate about how this should be handled. You can't just go to the third option because you think it is more fair. Gotta stick to the rules- this one is black & white IMO.

[rajncajn]

First off I'll say that I personally agree with Hook & Marauders, but what I want is something all can agree to (pipe dream) and follows the rules. Frankly the reason I didn't list the rules is because I think they are stupid & need to be changed. But this system was devised before I joined the league & was a rule when I took over as commish this year. It will be addressed come the offseason.

 

As it is we have 3 divisions. The top two teams from each division go to the playoffs along with one wildcard. The way we seed the playoffs is by overall record first, then head-to-head, then points regardless of divisions or division results. Team B just so happens to be the division champ over Team A which is part of the problem. He thinks because he defeated Team A for the division championship that he shouldn't be a lower seed.

[Grits and Shins]

Our results go by overall record first, then head-to-head then points. We have 3 teams tied with an 8-5 record. Team A beat Team C, Team C beat Team B. Team A & B are tied head-to-head. The points go in the order of Team B, Team A, Team C.

 

595718[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Our rules specifically allow for partial eliminations when there is a clear winner/loser, then we revert back to the top of the tie-breakers with remaining teams.

 

So in this case.

 

1) Overall record does not apply because all teams have the same overall record.

 

2) There is NO clear H2H winner or loser even though team A did not lose to any team, they also did not defeat the other 2 teams.

 

A defeated C

A tied B (or split H2H)

C defeated B

 

3) That leaves total points ... so Team B wins the first tie-breaker.

 

 

Then you revert to the top of the tie-breakers. Once again both teams have the same overall record so you drop to the 2nd tie-breaker ... and team A defeated team C H2H so wins the second tie.

 

So seeding order is:

 

Team B

Team A

Team C

Edited December 6, 2004 by Grits and Shins

[CaptainHook]

According to NFL rules, all divisional tie-breakers must be settled first. 3-way-tiebreakers are for division champs only.

[Marauders11]

First off I'll say that I personally agree with Hook & Marauders, but what I want is something all can agree to (pipe dream) and follows the rules. Frankly the reason I didn't list the rules is because I think they are stupid & need to be changed. But this system was devised before I joined the league & was a rule when I took over as commish this year. It will be addressed come the offseason.

 

As it is we have 3 divisions. The top two teams from each division go to the playoffs along with one wildcard. The way we seed the playoffs is by overall record first, then head-to-head, then points regardless of divisions or division results. Team B just so happens to be the division champ over Team A which is part of the problem. He thinks because he defeated Team A for the division championship that he shouldn't be a lower seed.

 

595852[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

You failed to mention the Divisional Battle-That has to be settled first.....

[Schleprock]

Agreed Captain. Team B gets the higher seed BECAUSE of the Div. Championship. That supercedes any other tiebreaks.

 

In the NFL, if 2 (or more) teams are tied for the division at year end, that battle is broken first. The Division Champ will automatically receive the highest seed it is capable of attaining (based on the record of other division champs). Then the remaining team (s) are placed into the wildcard pool.

 

Team B has a legitimate gripe.

Edited December 6, 2004 by Schleprock

[Grits and Shins]

First off I'll say that I personally agree with Hook & Marauders, but what I want is something all can agree to (pipe dream) and follows the rules. Frankly the reason I didn't list the rules is because I think they are stupid & need to be changed. But this system was devised before I joined the league & was a rule when I took over as commish this year. It will be addressed come the offseason.

 

As it is we have 3 divisions. The top two teams from each division go to the playoffs along with one wildcard. The way we seed the playoffs is by overall record first, then head-to-head, then points regardless of divisions or division results. Team B just so happens to be the division champ over Team A which is part of the problem. He thinks because he defeated Team A for the division championship that he shouldn't be a lower seed.

 

595852[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Of course I don't know what your rules say ... but I'd have to agree that it makes sense that the division winners would be seeded higher than the wildcards. That's the way it works in my leagues and the NFL. I am the 5th seed in my league despite having a better record than 1 of the division winners ... but because he is the division winner he is seeded higher.

 

However, if your rules state that division record is not to be considered when seeding the playoffs then clearly that argument is in valid.

 

Having said that I still believe that Team B is the top seed ... because you do NOT have a clear H2H winner. Above I showed how it would work with partial eliminations. If you don't allow partial eliminations then you should drop to the 3rd tie-breaker and resolve it that way ... which concidently enough is the same as if there were partial eliminations.

 

***********************************************************************

In a 3-way tie division record can NOT be considered unless all 3 teams are in the same division.

***********************************************************************

Edited December 6, 2004 by Grits and Shins

[CaptainHook]

Blitz, they DO HAVE a H2H winner. Team A beat BOTH B & C.

[Grits and Shins]

Blitz, they DO HAVE a H2H winner.  Team A beat BOTH B & C.

 

595890[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Not correct ... Team A & Team B are TIED in H2H ... which means they split their series. You can not simply throw team A's loss to team B out when considering a tie.

 

If the tie was only between Team A and Team B ... Team A would NOT win the H2H tie-breaker ... how does the introduction of another team change that?

[Grits and Shins]

The way I figure it is as follows.

 

TEAM "A" beat Team C, and Team B, while also losing to Team B- that gives them a record in these games (and these games are all that matter right now) of 2-1.

 

TEAM "B" lost to Team C, and split with Team A, giving them a record of 1-2

 

TEAM C lost to Team A, and beat Team B giving them a record of 1-1.

 

Therefore points DO NOT come into play:

 

Team A is #1 Seed

Team C is #2 Seed

Team B is #3 Seed

 

Simple- right!?

 

 

595776[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

This is NOT how H2H tie-breakers work.

 

In a 3-way tie you must a clear H2H advantage over all your opponents. Team A does NOT have a clear H2H advantage over all opponents.

 

Team A is TIED with team A on H2H

Team A has the H2H tie breaker on team C

 

Your way ... I could split all the games in my division for a 3-3 record. And win any 3-way tie with another team that lost to one of my divisional foes (in their one crack at them).

[Grits and Shins]

Check out the Tie-breakers on NFL.COM

 

TO BREAK A TIE FOR THE WILD-CARD TEAM

Three or More Clubs

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.)

[Ursa Majoris]

Check out the Tie-breakers on NFL.COM

 

TO BREAK A TIE FOR THE WILD-CARD TEAM

Three or More Clubs

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.)

 

595934[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Exactly. A three way head to head CAN be used for elimination by eliminating any team that has lost it's SERIES against all others, e.g. Team A beat Team C 2-0, Team B beat Team C 1-0, then Team C is eliminated and the head to head of Team A vs Team B is considered next.

[CaptainHook]

Not correct ... Team A & Team B are TIED in H2H ... which means they split their series.  You can not simply throw team A's loss to team B out when considering a tie.

 

If the tie was only between Team A and Team B ... Team A would NOT win the H2H tie-breaker ... how does the introduction of another team change that?

 

595900[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Actually, it is correct according to their rules. Of course the division should be settled first, but if they aren't going to do that, you don't just nullify the win because they lost another game. You advance in a three-way tie if you beat BOTH other teams, which they did. . .