Tie-breakers question

[Grits and Shins]

In one of my leagues it appears as if our tie-breaker rules for making the playoffs may be insufficient:

 

The tie breaker for seeding either division winners or wildcards will be the best overall win-loss record, then best percentage of wins between head to head games between all tying teams, then greatest total points and finally greatest points against if needed.

 

We have one more week left until the playoffs and could end up with 4 teams tied at 8-5 vying for 2 playoff spots ... the division title and the division wild card.

 

Team 1: 5-1 against other tied teams

Team 2: 3-3 against other tied teams

Team 3: 3-3 against other tied teams

Team 4: 1-5 against other tied teams

 

The problem is that our rules do not specify if partial elimination is allowed and if so how to implement partial elimination.

 

If there is partial elimination does that mean:

Team 1 is awarded the division based on his superior record amongst tied teams?

Team 4 eliminated based on his inferior record amongst tied teams?

 

One or both? Should tie-breakers revert back to the beginning after 1 team is eliminated? After 1 team is advanced?

 

Should total points be used to seed BOTH teams?

 

Should total points be used to seed ONE team then revert back to H2H/

 

It could be messy.

Edited December 4, 2006 by Grits and Shins

[The Holy Roller]

It will be messy.

[Big John]

Team 1 would win the division based on the top head to head.

 

After the division winner is set, then go for the wildcard. With the 3 remaining teams, team 4 is eliminated based on worst head to head. Teams 2 and 3 are then tied in this category, so go to tthe next tiebreaker of total points between those two teams.

[Grits and Shins]

Team 1 would win the division based on the top head to head.

 

After the division winner is set, then go for the wildcard. With the 3 remaining teams, team 4 is eliminated based on worst head to head. Teams 2 and 3 are then tied in this category, so go to tthe next tiebreaker of total points between those two teams.

 

I assume you mean to reset the H2H between the 3 remaining teams after Team 1 is awarded the division title?

 

After Team 1 is eliminated:

 

Team 2: 3-1 against remaining tied opponents

Team 3: 2-2 against remaining tied opponents

Team 4: 1-3 against remaining tied opponents

 

So Team 2 would advance.

 

Here is where it gets sticky. Since the rules do not specify that partial elimination is allowed it can be argued that one tie breaker should be used to seed both teams, in this case total points. Team 3 has a major advantage in total points.

 

So using partial elimination Team 3 is eliminated. Without partial elimination Team 3 is in (and has a good shot at the division) and Team 1 is out.

Edited December 4, 2006 by Grits and Shins

[Big John]

I assume you mean to reset the H2H between the 3 remaining teams after Team 1 is awarded the division title?

 

After Team 1 is eliminated:

 

Team 2: 3-1 against remaining tied opponents

Team 3: 2-2 against remaining tied opponents

Team 4: 1-3 against remaining tied opponents

 

So Team 2 would advance.

 

Here is where it gets sticky. Since the rules do not specify that partial elimination is allowed it can be argued that one tie breaker should be used to seed both teams, in this case total points. Team 3 has a major advantage in total points.

 

So using partial elimination Team 3 is eliminated. Without partial elimination Team 3 is the division winner.

Yes, the H2H would be reset after team 1 advances since it is not involved in the wildcard race, so team 2 would get the wildcard slot based on the 3-1 H2H between the remaining teams.

[Sharpie]

You would have two tie breakers. One for the division title which would remove Team 1 leaving the other 3 vying for the wild-card creating another tie breaker.

 

Once a division winner is decided, the rest are in for the wild card. Once team 1 is a division winner, they are no longer tied for the wild card and it's down to the remaining 3.

 

So, basically the same thing Big John said.

 

I all 4 were vying for two wild card spots, you would not partially eliminate the top seed. If that were the case, it would come down to total points between teams 2 and 3.

 

Good luck selling whatever you decide to the league as some coach will be making a case for themselves. Tell that coach, "good luck in the Rose Bowl"

[Grits and Shins]

You would have two tie breakers. One for the division title which would remove Team 1 leaving the other 3 vying for the wild-card creating another tie breaker.

 

Once a division winner is decided, the rest are in for the wild card. Once team 1 is a division winner, they are no longer tied for the wild card and it's down to the remaining 3.

 

So, basically the same thing Big John said.

 

I all 4 were vying for two wild card spots, you would not partially eliminate the top seed. If that were the case, it would come down to total points between teams 2 and 3.

 

 

I agree. Tie-breakers should be applied to determine the division winner. After the division winner is settled then tie-breakers are applied to the remaining teams to determine the wildcard.

[Azazello1313]

this is the problem with head-to-head as a tiebreaker. it is much wiser, IMO, to use divisional record then total points to break any ties for division champion, then total points only to break wildcard ties. points also seems a better measure of the stronger team.

 

edit: but for what you've got to deal with here, i agree with big john's analysis.

Edited December 4, 2006 by Azazello1313

[ABearWithFurniture]

Division tie-breakers:

 

1. Best W/L record

2. H2H

3. Best division record

4. Highest total points scored

 

Wildcard tie-breakers

 

1. Best W/L record

2. H2H

3. Highest total points scored

 

And H2H partial eliminations should only be used where 3 or more teams are tied and there is clearly one team that has been beaten every time by the others. When you have team A has 2 wins over team B but was beaten by team C, and team B lost both times to team A but beat team C, then this shouldn't be used as a tie-breaker.

[Azazello1313]

i think using head-to-head in fantasy football is dumb anyway. real football uses it because it actually MEANS something in that context: two teams were on the field together and one team demonstrated its superiority. fantasy is totally different...one person's collection of 9 different players from 9 different teams playing against 9 other teams, with bye weeks and everything else factoring in. it really doesn't indicate the superiority of one team over another like it does in real sports. that and the potential complexity of multi-team custerflucks like this one make head-to-head a bad tiebreaker for fantasy football, IMO.

[kwolf68]

i think using head-to-head in fantasy football is dumb anyway. real football uses it because it actually MEANS something in that context: two teams were on the field together and one team demonstrated its superiority. fantasy is totally different...one person's collection of 9 different players from 9 different teams playing against 9 other teams, with bye weeks and everything else factoring in. it really doesn't indicate the superiority of one team over another like it does in real sports. that and the potential complexity of multi-team custerflucks like this one make head-to-head a bad tiebreaker for fantasy football, IMO.

 

 

 

Pure Head-To-Head is a terrible system, but it is really fun to play. My league uses a Hybrid system incorporating Head to Head and Rotissiere records.

 

Head to Head works as a tie-break ONLY BETWEEN TEAMS in the same division (in case of a 2-0 sweep). But, for wildcard between teams NOT in the same division (each team plays other non-divisional teams one time) we DO NOT use H2H, but the teams Rotissiere record. the Rotissiere record is more indicitive of the better team.

 

We have a potential situation arising next week that if Team A beats Team B, Team A would have swept Team B...however, if Team C (in another division) ALSO pulls into a tie, then team B would get into the playoffs due to superior Rotissiere record. We don't want our league winnings to be determined based on the fact you got lucky to play someone who had 4 guys on a bye week.

 

Still, as screwed up as H2H is, I simply enjoy playing it more..and we have minimized the "luck factor" in my league with the way we have designed our systems

[The Wolf]

You would have two tie breakers. One for the division title which would remove Team 1 leaving the other 3 vying for the wild-card creating another tie breaker.

 

Once a division winner is decided, the rest are in for the wild card. Once team 1 is a division winner, they are no longer tied for the wild card and it's down to the remaining 3.

 

So, basically the same thing Big John said.

 

I all 4 were vying for two wild card spots, you would not partially eliminate the top seed. If that were the case, it would come down to total points between teams 2 and 3.

 

Good luck selling whatever you decide to the league as some coach will be making a case for themselves. Tell that coach, "good luck in the Rose Bowl"

 

 

Agree completely with Big John and with Sharpie. Make sure you get the rules clarified in the off season (regarding the elimination and re-start).

[TMan]

In our league, playoff positioning is determined this way and it works pretty well, plus it really puts emphasis on winning all matchups

 

Tie Breakers:

1) Record

2) Head to Head Matchup

3) Total Points

 

In the case that there are three teams or more, and no one team can win all head to head matchups, then total points is the deciding factor for all.

 

This has worked with out issue.

 

T.

[Avernus]

In one of my leagues it appears as if our tie-breaker rules for making the playoffs may be insufficient:

 

The tie breaker for seeding either division winners or wildcards will be the best overall win-loss record, then best percentage of wins between head to head games between all tying teams, then greatest total points and finally greatest points against if needed.

 

We have one more week left until the playoffs and could end up with 4 teams tied at 8-5 vying for 2 playoff spots ... the division title and the division wild card.

 

Team 1: 5-1 against other tied teams

Team 2: 3-3 against other tied teams

Team 3: 3-3 against other tied teams

Team 4: 1-5 against other tied teams

 

The problem is that our rules do not specify if partial elimination is allowed and if so how to implement partial elimination.

 

If there is partial elimination does that mean:

Team 1 is awarded the division based on his superior record amongst tied teams?

Team 4 eliminated based on his inferior record amongst tied teams?

 

One or both? Should tie-breakers revert back to the beginning after 1 team is eliminated? After 1 team is advanced?

 

Should total points be used to seed BOTH teams?

 

Should total points be used to seed ONE team then revert back to H2H/

 

It could be messy.

 

 

I have a messy situation heading into the final week myself as commish...

 

I have a 9-4 team and 4 8-5 teams....then 1 or 2 7-6 teams....but umm...I set it like this..

 

1. record

2. head to head

3. record vs division

4. points

 

so I have it like this

 

the 9-4 team is currently the #1 seed heading into the final week....there is one 8-5 team that has beaten all the other teams, but is in 2nd to the 9-4 team, so he gets the wildcard...

 

now you have 3 possible division leaders....two 8-5 teams are in the same division....they split 1-1 as well, but the one has a 4-2 record within the division and the other has a 2-4 record within the division......

 

so record within the division breaks it open...if not, total pts scored does..

[Bronco Billy]

In one of my leagues it appears as if our tie-breaker rules for making the playoffs may be insufficient:

 

The tie breaker for seeding either division winners or wildcards will be the best overall win-loss record, then best percentage of wins between head to head games between all tying teams, then greatest total points and finally greatest points against if needed.

 

We have one more week left until the playoffs and could end up with 4 teams tied at 8-5 vying for 2 playoff spots ... the division title and the division wild card.

 

Team 1: 5-1 against other tied teams

Team 2: 3-3 against other tied teams

Team 3: 3-3 against other tied teams

Team 4: 1-5 against other tied teams

 

The problem is that our rules do not specify if partial elimination is allowed and if so how to implement partial elimination.

 

If there is partial elimination does that mean:

Team 1 is awarded the division based on his superior record amongst tied teams?

Team 4 eliminated based on his inferior record amongst tied teams?

 

One or both? Should tie-breakers revert back to the beginning after 1 team is eliminated? After 1 team is advanced?

 

Should total points be used to seed BOTH teams?

 

Should total points be used to seed ONE team then revert back to H2H/

 

It could be messy.

 

 

Geez, this stuff really is pretty simple.

 

With the 2 spots for the 2 teams listed, Team 1 gets 1 spot through H2H record. Team 1 is the division winner, and the other three teams are vying for the wildcard spot. Apply the tiebreaking procedure again between the 3 teams for the wildcard.

 

Is this really that difficult?

 

Edited because I didn't read far enough & realize that one spot is a division title & the other is a WC spot

Edited December 4, 2006 by Bronco Billy

[Azazello1313]

Geez, this stuff really is pretty simple.

 

With the 2 spots for the 2 teams listed, Team 1 gets 1 spot through H2H record. Teams 2 & 3 are tied for the last spot due to H2H records, so they go to the next tiebreaker.

 

Is this really that difficult?

 

 

the big problem is "head to head against whom"? you can at least make an argument that once teams 1 and 4 are eliminated from the discussion, the tiebreaker between teams 2 and 3 should be their head-to-head record against EACH OTHER, not against 3 other teams, two of which were already ruled in or out. if it's down to teams 2 and 3, then shouldn't the first tiebreaker be H2H?

 

problem is, you can argue this chit a million different ways and there's rarely a crystal clear "correct" answer, which is one of the main reasons why H2H is a crappy tiebreaker.

[Bronco Billy]

the big problem is "head to head against whom"? you can at least make an argument that once teams 1 and 4 are eliminated from the discussion, the tiebreaker between teams 2 and 3 should be their head-to-head record against EACH OTHER, not against 3 other teams, two of which were already ruled in or out. if it's down to teams 2 and 3, then shouldn't the first tiebreaker be H2H?

 

problem is, you can argue this chit a million different ways and there's rarely a crystal clear "correct" answer, which is one of the main reasons why H2H is a crappy tiebreaker.

 

 

Of course, you're wrong again.

 

There are 4 teams tied for the division winner. You apply tiebreaking procedures to determine the division winner. Team 1 wins that.

 

Now you have all divison winners decided & need to decide who gets the wild card. Any teams tied for the wild card compete against each other by tiebreakers for that spot independently from the divisional tiebreaker. The divison tiebreaker & the wild card tiebreaker are independent events and have to be treated as such.

[Easy n Dirty]

The divison tiebreaker & the wild card tiebreaker are independent events and have to be treated as such.

 

 

 

I'd take it even one step further. The way the NFL does it, I'm fairly certain, is as follows - use your tiebreakers to determine divisional champions within each division. Then, start over and use your tiebreakers to determine the first wildcard. Then, start over again and use your tiebreakers to determine the second wildcard. Rinse and repeat, as many times as is necessary to fill out your league's playoff bracket.

 

So not only is the wildcard tiebreaking process a completely separate exercise from the divisional champ tiebreaking, but each discrete wildcard tiebreaking process is separate from the others (assuming multiple wildcards).

[TMan]

Exactly, first you determine division winners, then applying the same tie breakers determin the 1st WC. In one of my leagues 9 out of 12 teams going into this weekend stil have a shot at the playoffs. 3 division leaders and one wild card. Pretty straight forward though with the head to head to points method. I like figuring out all the possible scnarios and posting those to the league so that people know how it has to work out for them to get in. Aka "you got to win, Team B has to Lose and Team C has to win"

 

T.

 

 

I'd take it even one step further. The way the NFL does it, I'm fairly certain, is as follows - use your tiebreakers to determine divisional champions within each division. Then, start over and use your tiebreakers to determine the first wildcard. Then, start over again and use your tiebreakers to determine the second wildcard. Rinse and repeat, as many times as is necessary to fill out your league's playoff bracket.

 

So not only is the wildcard tiebreaking process a completely separate exercise from the divisional champ tiebreaking, but each discrete wildcard tiebreaking process is separate from the others (assuming multiple wildcards).

 

[Pirate lookin' at 40]

This is the exact reason that I made total points the first tiebreaker in my leagues.

 

Head to head is better, but damn it gets messy.

[Avernus]

This is the exact reason that I made total points the first tiebreaker in my leagues.

 

Head to head is better, but damn it gets messy.

 

 

but when you go head to head, it makes everything better....unpredictability...

[Bronco Billy]

This is the exact reason that I made total points the first tiebreaker in my leagues.

 

Head to head is better, but damn it gets messy.

 

 

In a Head to Head league, how do you justify to an owner how he missed the playoffs despite beating one or more of the teams that he is tied with?

 

If you're going to use this philosophy, why not go to a total points league?

[Pirate lookin' at 40]

The reason we originally went that route was because cbs sportsline used points in their standings and did not give another option.

 

Since I have made the decision to drop sportsline after this year because of the poor service, I am going to take a league vote on using head to head. But the service we use has to support that.

[McBoog]

This thread made my head hurt. You need to totally revamp your tie breaking system!

[Grits and Shins]

This thread made my head hurt. You need to totally revamp your tie breaking system!

 

 

In another very similar league I am in we could have a FIVE WAY tie for the wild card spot

 

Team 1 (6-7) vs Team 5 week 14

.... 2-0 vs Team 2

.... 2-0 vs Team 3

.... 0-2 vs Team 4

.... 0-1 vs Team 5

 

4-3

 

Team 2 (6-7) vs Team 4 week 14

.... 0-2 vs Team 1

.... 2-0 vs Team 3

.... 1-0 vs Team 4

.... 2-0 vs Team 5

 

5-2

 

Team 3 (5-8) vs Team 6 week 14

.... 0-2 vs Team 1

.... 0-2 vs Team 2

.... 1-1 vs Team 4

.... 1-1 vs Team 5

 

2-6

 

Team 4 (5-8) vs Team 2 week 14

.... 2-0 vs Team 1

.... 0-1 vs Team 2

.... 1-1 vs Team 3

.... 1-1 vs Team 5

 

4-3

 

Team 5 (5-8) vs Team 1 week 14

.... 1-0 vs Team 1

.... 0-2 vs Team 2

.... 1-1 vs Team 3

.... 1-1 vs Team 4

 

3-4

 

If Team 1 wins they have the playoff spot (and will be 7-7). Even if Team 3 wins it looks unlikely that they could win any ties.

Edited December 6, 2006 by Grits and Shins